Nuanced. - 254. Karen Restoule: Can Aboriginal Title & Private Property Coexist in Canada?

Episode Date: July 27, 2026

Karen Restoule, who is Ojibwe from Dokis First Nation, joins to discuss Aboriginal title, private property, DRIPA, Cowichan, Kamloops, media accountability, and whether Canada can pursue reconciliation while protecting homeowners and rebuilding Indigenous leadership with host Aaron Pete.Send us Fan MailSupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

With the Cowichin decision in British Columbia and then the Wallace Decoy in New Brunswick, courts are wrestling with whether Aboriginal title can coexist with fee simple land. Where are you landing on this? I think that is one of the most, if not, the most complex problem of our time here in Canada. Would you support constitutional reform to protect private property rights? That's a tough one. There was a door left open there to first, talks around Section 35 of the Constitution and how it gets applied and exercised. Do you think there is a reconciliation industry?

Absolutely. We do live in a world where it seems like there are a good number of folks, particularly in the professional services world, who are looking to maintain the status quo, because ultimately it protects their bottom line. When does reconciliation come to an end? Karen Restu'll, thank you so much for joining us today. It's a privilege to have you on the show. Would you mind briefly introducing yourself? Sure, I'm Karen Restu.

I'm joining you from Ontario. I'm from Doki's First Nation. And currently I'm working with McDonald-Loree Institute as the director of Indigenous Affairs. Thanks for having me, Erin. Ah, the privilege is all mine. I'm wondering if we could start. You've talked about and argued that First Nations,

do not need saving by government. They need government to get out of the way. When you look at reconciliation in Canada today, what are your reflections? Are we building something up? Are we creating more uncertainty? What is going on? I think as Canadian provincial territorial governments

try to wrap their heads around indigenous policy, it's a bit of a stretch for them to distance themselves from quote-unquote the Indian problem. And what I mean by that is that there seems to be this idea that, you know, there has to be a policy solution that they themselves develop and implement in order for us to be successful. And you know, as well as I do, Aaron, we don't need government to save us. Our nations, our leaders, our citizens are more than well equipped to be able to lead our own way. And the proof point in that, we can simply look to, you know, leadership across British Columbia.

Recent examples I can think of, you look at the Heisle Nation, you have leaders like Ellis Ross and Crystal Smith, who, you know, 20 to 30 years ago recognized the need to move their communities beyond the current state of poverty and to turn to. to business and engage with business directly and, you know, enter into business partnership, equitable business partnership and move themselves economically closer to prosperity. And in doing so, naturally, it's best, who best knows our nations than we ourselves. And I think they're an excellent example there of what we're seeing across. the country, which is indigenous leaders, elected and business leaders and others who are taking our futures into our own hands and moving the yardstick forward. How do we balance those cases with the fact that regularly, First Nation communities argue that

they're behind an education rates, they're behind in a sense of opportunities, in economic development opportunities, and that while there are LS, Rosses and individuals like yourself and myself, there are many more communities that don't have individuals like that at the helm and we start to see corruption, bad actors, or people who just don't know how to operate within some of these government funding systems and resources. And so their people end up starting to fall behind. How do we balance those two truths? I think one point to be fair to this conversation is essentially what you're asking is,

how do we fix 150 years of the Indian Act? And to be fair, it's going to take a little longer than simply flipping a switch. I think there are incredible leaders. Like you say, there are some nations that are less that are positioned geographically in places where there may be less economic, obvious economic opportunity who do still have to contend. with the old relationship with Ottawa as it has been set out by the Indian Act. And by that, I don't know that a lot of people understand or even know that the Crown gave itself the responsibility for Indians and all Indian lands. They themselves created this fiduciary obligation that 150 years ago really made clear that the government shall be taking care of Indians and Indian lands and that we shouldn't have to worry in exchange for, you know, access points through land in and around our legal territories. And so that over 150 years has really impacted people's worldview. I think it has limited us in a lot of ways in terms of being able to even see the opportunities that are there within our world. reach. And it might take a couple or a few generations for some communities to be able to

push themselves around the challenges to be able to see and access the opportunities. With the Cowichin decision in British Columbia and then the Wallace Decoy in New Brunswick, courts are wrestling with whether Aboriginal title can coexist with. the simple land. Where are you landing on this? I think that is one of the most, if not, the most complex problem of our time here in Canada. You have Section 35 of the Constitution that very clearly recognizes Aboriginal rights and by extension title and treaty rights, inherent rights. And last I checked, the Constitution doesn't necessarily outline a constitutional protection for private property rights. And so that has worried a lot of Canadians across the country.

And to be fair, rightfully so, you know, when something like, you know, when a case like Couchin comes through the courts and makes findings that to some of us we've been paying attention for the last decades, but to many others, they're not reading cases coming out of the courts on the day to day and may not have necessarily appreciated that that dynamic has existed. And it has existed for a very long time. And it's simply that, you know, the courts after, what is it, five years of trial, what is it, 500 days of trial, the longest. Canadian trial in history. It's only by going through that exercise and really coming at it and studying the evidence, you know, very carefully before them that the judge is able to issue a decision that really brought to light for a lot of Canadians, the current, you know, conflict or tension that we wrestle with when it comes to land. You know, you ask where, Where I'm mad on that is that, you know, I know I can appreciate that there are many indigenous leaders out there who want to rewind the clock 200 years, 300 years, and go back to the before times before we would have entered into treaty and all kinds of agreements with the crown. But that's just not going to happen.

We're in the current reality where, and the Supreme Court said it best, you know, no one's going anywhere. We're all here to stay. And so it's on us to recognize the various interests. Some people call them rights. For the sake of the conversation, I think we should be calling them interests. We all have interests in this land, in this country. And I am optimistic and hopeful that we can find modern. day solutions to ensure that everyone's interests are respected. But I'll be pointed, Erin. Do I think that someone should be uprooted from their home because of, you know, the tension point between title and private property? Absolutely not. To me, that is not a modern day solution. And I think it's on us to crack our heads open, have really tough discussion. with one another, which I can appreciate you do so on your show, have really tough conversations with one another, and force and push ourselves to arrive at something that works for everyone. Would you support constitutional reform to protect private property rights? That's a tough one. I think a lot of folks have been in recent years talking about wanting to reopen the Constitution.

I know that having interviewed a couple of folks in and around, you know, how Section 35 of the Constitution came to be, there was a door left open there to further talks around Section 35 of the Constitution and how it gets applied and exercised. Again, going back to my point, simply, you know, bringing all parties together to take. have a conversation about the various points and contentions in terms of how Section 35 and the Constitution is being exercised today is a good thing. And so I fully support, you know, a conference or a summit, if you will, to discuss how we might make this work for everyone in a way that respects everyone's position and interests and also allow. us to get to a place where we're coexisting respectfully and mutually and that we're all benefiting in a mutual way. Do you think that the temperature has risen between First Nations and everyday Canadians, the political temperature? I think the conversation that we are seeing play out on social media in the virtual public square is very, different than that conversation that's happening on the ground. Now, that said, I hope it doesn't go that way,

but, you know, there's always the possibility that the fiery discourse makes its way on the ground. And we may see, you know, some head-to-head conflicts in certain scenarios. This is where leadership matters. And I'm not talking about, you know, leading and making decisions based on polling information to help, you know, keep your supporters happy and keep you in good position in the polls. I'm talking about leaders who can see that the importance of saying and doing the hard things that they know to be just and right may not be. expedient or popular in current form, but can see the forest through the trees and are able to, you know, bring Canadians, bring First Nations folks along to be able to see various solutions that might, you know, reposition, help us reposition our country so that we can get back to focusing on what matters most. I don't know about you, Aaron, but, you know, although these conversations

matter, and I'm a huge fan of having tough conversations, but there is a lot of value in doing and taking action in getting out there, building companies, you know, taking on, partnering on major resource development projects, and just really, you know, instead of dealing on the, kind of the push and pull on rights and interests, get back to building our country so that everyone can live a comfortable life and so that we can, you know, be happy and proud about our individual contribution to ourselves and our families and communities, but most importantly, so that one day we can reflect proudly on our contribution that we're all making to building this country up.

I don't know if you're in the loop on BC politics, but over the last few months, we've had issues with DRIPA with the Gittsala decision that was around Minerala. rights and the premier came out and said, we're going to make changes. It's going to be based on a confidence vote and we're going to see where we land on this. And then a few days later, he said, this isn't going to be a confidence vote, but we're going to be proceeding. Then a few days later, he said, we're not going to be proceeding at all. We're going to be meeting with First Nations more and having more conversations. Thank you, Minister Nikki Sharma, for leading this work. It was very confusing. And the broader concern I have is there was a lot of pressure put on by the BCAFN

and UBC I see, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs to not proceed. And how that was perceived by British Columbians was you were prioritizing the interests of this small group of people over everyday British Columbians who are afraid and worried about what DRIPA means for them and their lives. Now, There's complications with that, which is that DRIPA did not cause the Cowichin decision. It didn't have any direct impact, I think, on the concerns around private property. And that's what B.C. conservatives are telling people, we're going to repeal DRIPA and protect your property rights. So there's a bit of, I think, miscommunication and misunderstandings about the law. But how do you, when you hear, when we're talking about leadership, when you

hear that, what's going through your mind? Yeah, don't forget that people also think that land acknowledgements have influenced. the courts in their decision-making, too, which I understand the argument to which people exercise to support that statement, but I don't agree with it. I like to think that the judges who are appointed to uphold justice in our country and our provinces and territories are committed to upholding legal principles and exercising them with a great deal of responsibility, rather than being swayed by Sing Song, you know, romantic statements issued by a certain specific demographic of Canadians. So, but back to your question.

Again, I think you have elected leaders, non-Indigenous elected leaders who truly believe that, you know, whatever policy prescription they introduce is the solution to everything. I don't envy you, Erin, Chief Pete, being in British Columbia, trying to lead your own community and citizens in a direction that you see fit for you and your people. But certainly I too can appreciate that drip-un-drip by and large has been pushed by a small number of First Nations within British. Columbia and the NDP government was more than happy to pick up that policy idea and run with it. What we're seeing in terms of impacts is as that gets applied and exercised and, as you mentioned, upheld by the courts, more and more Canadians are starting to understand what that policy means in application, especially as the court, you know, communicates what it is exactly that the BCNDP has committed the province to. And recognizing that, in fact, it is a wide-reaching and far-reaching piece of policy that fundamentally does change, well, you know, all policy, all provincial policy in current form in British Columbia.

And so we're seeing that the effects of that are that there is a backlash against reconciliation. You have a number of people who believed that reconciliation simply meant, you know, being kinder and more understanding and empathetic as good Canadians do, and are now understanding that, in fact, it means an overhaul of all BC policies so that they in line fundamentally with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Now that said, when I kind of step back from Undrip and look at it writ large, like it's not a bad document in that, for me anyway, the way I look at it, it's simply, you know, ways on how to respect your neighbor, right? Ways on how to do better business with First Nations, communities, and people. You know, how to be a nice, kind, respectful, partner, government, person, neighbor. And so when you look at the fundamentals, you know, I think back 10, 15 years when Undrip became part of the discourse here in Canada, you know, you had governments who were committing to it,

to the spirit and intent of it. I now understand more clearly what they meant by that. The principles that it promotes are positive and good. But when you bring in an international human rights instrument and you adopt it within provincial legislation, of course you're going to run into problems, right? Last time I checked, policy schools aren't teaching their students to take international human rights instruments as a guiding point for policy development in a number of different sectors and areas. And so I think what we have here on the policymaking side is just a fundamental conflict in how to go about smart policymaking that truly does reflect the values of the society, but more importantly, that is supposed to position a collective, a group,

a province, a region, a country in a better direction. The other piece to this that I feel like you and I are in a good position to discuss is just how these things are communicated. Because as we've kind of touched on and I'd like to get into it more with you, we have these lobbying First Nation organizations like the AFN, UBCIC, who have their positions and they're often more hardline and less doing long-form interviews, trying to think these things through, what do they mean, how do we discuss them, how do we approach things? You and I are willing to go into universities and have these conversations, but I'd say, I don't want to put you in a political camp, but like we're pragmatic in how we approach things. We're willing to seed ground where it doesn't make sense to say land acknowledgments are the beginning step to all solutions. We're willing to be more middle grounded. And then we have individuals like Pam Palmer and Sean Carleton that are more hardliners. They will not communicate with me at all because I'm willing to talk to. individuals who I disagree with like Francis Whittowson, like Nigel Beghar, and like debate them. And they don't believe I should even, they believe I'm platforming individuals. And so we have kind of like a few different camps. And I find and I imagine you see this is true. People really want to talk to us because we're reasonable. But I also know I'm not representative of 204 First Nation communities. Some of them

still want to protest. Some of them still want to shut down highways. Like I'm not representative of them. And so I try and think through like, what is our role in this? How do we meet Canadians where we're at? Because I think we're bridge builders in that sense, while also recognizing that we don't represent like all indigenous voice. Like, how do you think those things through? Because I do worry about being used kind of as the, well, Aaron says, Chief Aaron says it's reasonable.

So that must be right. And it's like, no, like I am me. Like I can't speak for everybody. I don't speak for all First Nations people. But I do see a role for myself to like, I can say I don't like land acknowledgments and we did an event together. And afterwards, you get kind of bombarded by people being like, thank you. I'm so exhausted by doing them and I don't feel comfortable and you have like this sense of relief.

So we're participating, but I'm just, I'm trying to think through what is our role and how do you think about that? Yeah. First of all, Aaron, like I wouldn't take away from your natural leadership skills. Like I think you have a gift and that gift is being exercised in a time where it needs to be exercised. And showing up as the reasonable, level-headed pragmatist that you are, I think the country needs that right now. And so great that your nation recognizes that, and they put you in that leadership role, and you have that responsibility to your nation. I also think with that elected responsibility comes the kind of, with it comes greater.

leadership skills to the region, to the province, and to the country. And so I wouldn't, I wouldn't take that away. And I recognize your humility there. But I think what you have to offer is needed now more than ever in this country and in this conversation. That said, I've been contending with this question lately because I have been accused of, you know, towing a certain political party line. And I had to correct the person and simply say, hold on a second. I am first and foremost on Ishna Bay. Right? First and foremost, this is who I am. I understand very clearly where I come from. I understand, you know, the principles with to which I was raised, with which I was raised, both, you know, within within my nucleus family, but also, you know, the principles that guide, have guided my community

and my nation where I'm from for decades and centuries. And I've done a lot of thinking about, about that in order to get to this place where I'm very confident in my understanding of who I am, where I come from, and most importantly, you know, what some of my responsibilities are based on the gifts that I carry. And so when when I broke down those principles, this would have been now about 15 years ago. When I broke down those principles and I jotted them out down, I started jotting on paper to really try to sort what was going on in my head and what I was seeing play out on the ground. By and large, a lot of the principles that were exercised in essentially creating me, align with conservatism.

Some, not all. And I think that's true to any individual. Maybe there's exceptions. But any citizen in this country, there's no one that subscribes 110% to every principle that is clearly outlined to any partisan political party. And so people forget that, I mean, sure, maybe. some people get really excited when they see a certain someone elected and they feel like, oh, this person really represents who I am and what I stand for. That's fine. But by and large, how you support partisan politics in this country should be a reflection of those values and principles within which you've been raised, you know, the values and principles that you believe to be true and that you wake up every morning and strive to exercise and everything that you do. And I think that is getting. getting lost in, you know, the mud throwing that I'm seeing online. There's a lot of tribalism

and people are, I don't know that people are selecting teams and tribes based on principles and values. I think it's sometimes, you know, who's able to channel into anger and negative emotion can drive the bigger camp, can drive, you know, can build the bigger army, so to speak. And so I personally am very puzzled with the way that's transpired. But to your point, back to your question, I think some of these activists, some of the hardcore advocates and activists that are out there also should pause and reconsider what their goals are when they're supporting certain messages. And consider the responsibility that they carry with that platform that they have. And consider what are the short, mid and long-term impacts of what it is that I'm putting out there for consumption?

And recognize that, you know, with that, you know, what's the line with greater responsibility comes with, I forget the line. But you know, the line. Power comes great responsibility. That's right. Yeah. And the reality about today is that there's a lot of power simply in people's hands, right, in their cell phones. And so how you exercise that, I think, should extend beyond yourself. And you really need to consider what the impacts are for everyone else around you.

Do you think that there's a place for perhaps media training or more broader political education for First Nation communities? And the only reason I ask that is because I look at how the Camloops 215 story has been handled. I look at very recently the treaty chiefs in Alberta coming out and saying they want Premier Smith looked into investigated for treason. And I just go, okay, like, there's, there's, there's their position. And I can comprehend that. I'm sure you can understand where they're coming from on these things. What I just look at where we are politically in a society right now and go, guys, this isn't the time to be, to be using this kind of language.

This isn't the time to be increasing the temperature in the room. And I don't say that because I think, I think they don't know that this has these broader effects, that conservatism as an institution, as like a group of people, are getting more and more skeptical of their agenda. And I look at how Premier Eby approached and I asked him and the Minister of Reconciliation, like, hey guys, if you delay this and we have an election and you lose, conservatives are going to come in and remove DRIPA anyways. Like, it's besides the point of you thinking you're delaying it for the betterment of anybody.

You need to convince British Columbians you're working for them right now. And then I look at the separatism piece and you see how angry now Albertans are at treaty communities. And it's like, this is whatever happens. Premier Smith is like, if you don't want our help, we'll step back. This is the opposite of what their members would actually want if they understood kind of the political landscape. And I just, I'm trying to think through how do we support and understanding. Because I think you and I can see tea leaves and we can see where the wind is blowing on some of these things.

I just don't know if some First Nation communities do. And then they make a really bold move that really hurts their own. relationship with everyday Canadians or British Columbians? So, Burton's. The first thought that comes to mind when you bring this up is I've worked for a public affairs firm where I've had to, you know, work with clients to help convince media to cover their story.

And some stories, particularly on the, you know, economic front, I've had a hard time hooking media in and saying, you know, come cover the success story that, you know, these First Nations have worked so hard to achieve. and what a great opportunity to kind of, you know, message out to the country that nations are, in fact, rebuilding their own nations. And they are, in fact, you know, doing so very proudly recognizing that, you know, the impacts will extend beyond just them into the region and the country. And you don't even get a callback, right? And so who within the media sphere is giving a spotlight to these stories, number one, And if we think about recently how the chem loops 215 stories is, you know, think about that Globe and Mail editorial board issued that opinion or that essay recently, essentially saying, you know, we as media have to pursue truth and not simply, you know, run with and, and, you know, find step around. And it opened up the conversation. I think of, you know, someone like Terry Glevin, who was essentially canceled a few years ago for simply asking questions. I think there's a way to ask questions and some individuals don't necessarily exercise a great deal of respect when they ask those questions. But nonetheless, for the sake of the country, it's healthy to ask questions so long as you do so respectfully.

And so coming back to my point is, you know, when I think of that story and the treaty chiefs, you know, which media platforms are the first ones to run out and cover the story and write headlines that are misleading and leverage language that exaggerates the case at hand, right? I believe it was, you know, one of those outlets that called it Western Standard. Well, sorry, the 215 mass graves. Was it the Western... Yeah, it was more of a left-leaning outlet that decided to call it a mass grave when in fact none of the First Nations leaders at the time had called it that. They simply said there's anomalies there. We're doing the work.

We highly suspect that these are the deaths that we know in our community. you know, there were kids that went to residential school and never made it back. There were families who have been left with questions. And they simply said, you know, some of our kids died and we don't know where they are and they might be here. But that's not the story. You heard from mainstream media, right? And my point back then was, do you really have to exaggerate this story? Like, one kid dying at residential school is a very bad thing.

You don't need to exaggerate the story, right? You can cover it as is. You can report the truth. You can ask tough questions in a very respectful and empathetic manner and share simply the truth about what's going on there. There's no need to exaggerate. And so my point here is that mainstream media has responsibility in this, and they have a huge role to play.

And quite frankly, they're not being held to account in the way that they ought to be. But to your point about training on our end, listen, like, I love where I'm from, but my family, by and large, doesn't really understand, you know, what it is that I do and you do in hosting these conversations and entertaining these conversations and trying to, you know, promote, you know, the truth, frankly, I think you and I and others try to do is to write the course by simply presenting information and truth as we know it to be. You know, my family doesn't really fully appreciate why I do that. You know, they kind of, they think, why would you, why would you do that?

Why would you put yourself at risk and in front of the light and carry your voice forward in the way that you do? But if you're not part of the conversation about you, people are going to make it up. and people are going to twist it in ways that hurt you and your community and your people. And so simply understanding that baseline, our people are very savvy and smart. I think by and large, you have a lot of elected leaders across the country who are trying, who wake up every morning and work really hard to kind of, you know, maintain or move their community to a healthier place. You know as well as I do, the legacies of the Indian Act, namely, you know, residential schools, 60-day school. The legacies from that time are still, you know, in play today through various addictions and violence and in other negative forms.

And there's a lot of leaders out there who are simply waking up every morning and trying to keep their communities healthy and trying to move their communities to a better place. And that, you know, like you said, I don't know that they have time to appreciate why they should go through media training. And so I guess all of this to say, players all around have a responsibility. The media should recognize their level of expertise and skill. And they should be exercising care and respect when engaging with leaders who may not necessarily fully appreciate how, you know, how the media industry works. You think they should excavate in Cameloups? I think it's on every family and nation to determine what is best for them.

Like I understand that some nation's protocols are to, you know, go and get the body and bring it home. there are, you know, in my case, historically, my nation, when we had people passed, they would be buried in the place that they laid to rest. And so, you know, we do have, quote unquote, burial grounds, like, well, grounds, you know, sites where people have been laid to rest, where their spirits left their body, all up there, you know, our territory in and in and around the river. Now, today, we do have, we do have. a cemetery and a burial grounds and that's where, you know, families choose to lay their loved ones to rest. But I think it's ultimately left to the individual, to the family, to the community to determine whether or not they want to, they want to, you know, pursue a greater investigation or whether or not, you know, they can find peace without finding the body. Even if it causes polarization across the country around some of these questions? Wow, I mean, here's the thing. I don't think it's anybody's business other than the family, where a family or an individual chooses to have their loved one resting. Now, that said, I think what's driving Canadians' interest in this conversation is the millions of dollars that the government has extended to some communities to be able to undergo that work.

Now, I'm of two minds on this. It's a lot of money, but also if a family and or a community wishes to pursue answers to find their loved one, we need to consider here that fundamentally the reason why that person is missing is because of state intervention. Had it not been for state intervention, we have. wouldn't have to search for those bodies, right? Because those kids would have been at home with their families. And so where the state is responsible, it's, it's, you went to law school, the but-for test, right? Had it not been but-for, we wouldn't be here, therefore. And so the state, you know, where the state's responsible, the state has to take responsibility. And if Canadians are

frustrated with that, their anger and frustration should be directed to the state. for their actions and inactions. I guess the critics would say, then why apply for the money? If the goal isn't to excavate and to get some of those answers, what was the purpose in doing ground penetrating radar to determine that you think it may be in a certain spot? Right, but here's a thing like they don't know, right?

Like, if you really dive, a lot of Canadians don't know that Volume four of the TRCs report, not a chapter of volume, has a lot of the information on the kids that did pass on while forcibly attending residential school. And to this day, I believe there are groups who are fighting to protect or get access to additional information from church and state. So imagine, you know, you have an uncle or an aunt or a great uncle or an aunt or a distant cousin that you know never made at home, but the church and state aren't giving you any information whatsoever that they might have that might be able to find those answers. And essentially all you have to rely on is word of mouth from others who would have been around them at age six, seven, and eight. And so you're operating on a very kind of minimal baseline of evidence here while trying to find peace. And so, yeah, the risk is that, you know, you could take some of those government funds and, you know, go through the GPR process. And it may just turn out that, in fact, that's not the spot where they're laid to rest.

But this is the thing about trying to find answers. you don't know, right? You suspect that, you know, there may have been bodies there, but frankly, that's where we're at, is that there's not a lot of answers. And frankly, I think those that are willing to undertake the work exercise a great degree of courage, because it's a hard thing.

It's a hard thing to wake up every day and say, I'm going to go out there and I'm going to dig around and I'm going to bring home, I'm going to, you know, in pursuit of truth for my family and community, I think it takes a great degree of courage to be able to do that. Do you think there is a reconciliation industry? And when I say that, I mean, there's a lot of consultants, there's a lot of lawyers supporting with specific claims, there's a lot of lawyers supporting with negotiations. And critics in British Columbia have just started to point out

millions of dollars goes to these law firms, these consultants, to encourage more specific claims, more arguments, more debates, more funding from governments. What are your thoughts on that criticism? Absolutely. I think there is, you know, when I think back to, sorry, I don't know the other author, but like Whitteson co-authored that book, you know, 15 years ago about the Aboriginal industry, I agree with the premise of that. We do live in a world where it seems like there are a good number of folks, particularly in the professional services world, who are looking to maintain the status quo because ultimately it protects their bottom line. But also, I do know that there are a good deal of folks out there in professional services who truly are invested in reconciliation, in moving the yardstick forward with, the nations for the benefit of the next generations. And so like anything in life, you know,

that you have people who proceed with good intentions, but there's always, you know, some bad apples, you know, among the bunch that seem to spoil things. But that said, Aaron, I recently shared this with a friend I had, I don't know if you've ever met her. Sarah Robinson, she was from Fort Nelson. She grew up in the Vancouver area in British Columbia. She passed away from cancer in 2021. Her and I met in 2015 at a conference, despite her leanings to the Orange team. Her and I got along quite well and became very close friends in those six years. And had, you know, she was often in Toronto or I would visit out west. And we would often embark on these kind of like deeper questions, some of which you're asking me today. And she said to me once,

she said, what would you be doing if you didn't do the advocacy that you do today? And I said, oh boy, I had it like, I'd never considered it. It's just a thing. You know, I, I, I, I, I, I, saw it within myself and I still do to be able to, you know, participate in public discourse in order to bring truth to the forefront, but more importantly, bring solutions and keep people moving in the right direction so that we don't stay stuck forever in disagreeing with one another. And I put the question back to her and she says, I'd run a bookstore and a coffee shop on the west coast of Vancouver Island, right? And at the time, she was in law school at University of Victoria, but was also involved in, you know, the Women's Council for the

province of British Columbia and very much involved in, you know, general advocacy and advisory and consulting. She ran her own consulting firm. And that conversation and her making that point has stayed with me since we, since that night. And I often reflect, especially when I hear, you know, people criticize Whitteson and others about raising that point. I think we're losing sight of what the goal is here, right? The goal is not to get up and fight, fight, fight every morning to no end. The goal is to recalibrate our society, to try to bring things into balance, not necessarily how they were 200 years ago, because we're not going back to

before times. The goal is to get up every morning and be part of the conversation, be part of the doing, to recalibrate our society so that nations can ultimately be responsible for nations. You know, Canadian federal provincial governments can ultimately be responsible for themselves. And we can respect each other's autonomy. We can respect each other's sovereignty. We can take responsibility for own affairs. And ultimately, I'd love to see a world where there is no need for indigenous advocacy or activism. You know, where no one indigenous person or young person gets out of bed in the morning and feels the need to fight someone in order to achieve equity or equality

or some form of fairness or the achievement of respect. I think that is the goal. But it's tough out there. I'm not hearing that from people. Right? And so to your question, are there people exploiting this industry? Absolutely. But I think it's on us. I think it's on those of us who understand that we get up every day and we have these conversations and we do push for policy amendments and whatnot with the ultimate goal of restoring balance in society. You somewhat answered it. When does reconciliation come to an end? Oh, yo, yo, y'oy. You're asking me to look in a crystal ball here, Aaron.

Has anyone ever put that question to you on your own show? They have. My answer is I always thought and was raised to believe that reconciliation was about addressing the socioeconomic differences between indigenous people and non-indigenous people. So when we see education rates equal or similar, to everyday Canadians. When we see mental health rates, suicide rates, economic employment opportunities being presented at the same rate where First Nations

have the same opportunities as everyday Canadians. That is when I will define reconciliation as closed. It makes it measurable. It makes it so we know whether or not a policy is reaching any of those objectives. And it brings into a close. Now, I'll be the first to admit, there are, I think, two broadly held groups of people about reconciliation. One is about rights and title and one is about socioeconomic conditions. And I'm firmly in the socioeconomic conditions camp because I know that that can just, that can shape a whole person's

life in a way that rights and title. Like, I hear people say things like, this is my land. And I get like, it's your ancestors land that they're connected to, but it's not yours because we were communal. And I get very, Like, it's a very complex, abstract idea to have land in a generational sense that you're inheriting, because it's not even clear to me that my own community members know where our historic villages sites are. And so they're claiming land in a very abstract way where socioeconomic conditions, I think governments, society, British Columbians, Canadians, we can all kind of like, yeah, we don't want somebody who doesn't have clean drinking water.

Like, we can all agree on those things without it getting politically divisive. So that's how I define reconciliation, how I would define it coming to an end. Oh, I like that. Thanks for sharing. On that point, I, too, I agree with everything you've put forward. I also think that, you know, the social aspects, I think, you know, going back to your question, when have we achieved reconciliation? when we can, you know, walk across our communities and see that everyone is relatively healthy to the same degree as our neighbors as other Canadians. But to me, that's the result of business and policy, right? And right now, the Indian Act does limit us, whether you're on reserve or not, if you are a status Indian in this country, that policy is still very much. impacts, generational wealth transfers, land ownership. You know just as well as I do, we don't

own our land on reserve. You know, we have a certificate of possession while the ultimate holder of the land resides in Ottawa. And so fundamentally, when you consider how many Canadians have built wealth through private property ownership, have built wealth through exercising business opportunities, either directly on those lands or leveraging that land in order to access financing to be able to pursue business opportunities in order to build wealth. These are still barriers that exist there.

And so when I think of reconciliation, I know some people tie it directly to residential school in the TRC, but I think about it within the broader context like you do is we need to reconcile the fundamental injustices that exist within the policy framework in order to break down those barriers that exist to this day in this country and impact. Probably people don't know that, you know, I think of some of our. our circles, like, people probably look at us and don't have any idea that the Indian Act would impact us in the way that it does today. But it does. And that's the reality. And simply, once you unlock those policy barriers and restore autonomy and respect sovereignty where it exists in the way that it exists and allow people the space and time to exercise their agency and to take their own futures into their own hands, to me, that is when reconciliation

will be in motion. And the product of that will be, to me, reconciliation achieved. Erin, how can people follow your work? You can follow at McDonald-Lory Institute. From time to time, I contribute at the hub. And I recently, like you, have started my own podcast and people can follow along at the Breakthrough Nation podcast as I host, like you, varying voices, some of which I don't always agree with. But nonetheless, you know, good, good hardworking people who have a passion for our country and want to see, eventually want to see, you know, our country move to a place. that benefits everybody and who are arduently pursuing that vision in the way that they believe to be fit.

So anyway, long answer to say, that's where folks can find me. Well, thank you, Karen, for joining us today. I've appreciated sharing the stage with you. We've done it a few times. And there's not very many people in our specific position where we do have, I think, some in our communities who support what we're doing and the approach we take, but I've been called an apple, I've been accused of platforming alt-rate denialists.

Like, we get, like, kind of if from both sides, and to continue to sit in those seats and try and steer the conversation in a productive way while getting a lot of criticism, both within our community, but from broader Canadian society, like, there will be people who come on here who say, stop the grift. Like there's going to be people across the spectrum who have a lot of opinions about what we do. But we do so, I think, both in the hopes that we can make a stronger, more united country, and we can debate about how to get there. But I know the burden and the toll that this work can take in terms of people's feedback. And so it's just, it's nice to work alongside somebody, to know somebody who's doing that similar work, because it can feel lonely at times just on this stage of trying to have these tough conversations. 100%. And I think, Erin, we should probably thank the people who connected us, right? The good people that have shared their platforms that do support the work that we do. You know, that's how you and I met is people who brought us in to share a message. And I think it's always fun to be able to come across another spirit that aligns with mine. you know, willing to kind of ignore the naysayers in pursuit of building a better country. So thanks so much for having me on the show, Erin. I've enjoyed this and I'll have to have you on the Breakthrough Nation podcast next.

I look forward to it. Thank you, Karen. Thanks.