Nuanced. - 260. Ellis Ross: Indigenous Member of Parliament Warns About the Cowichan Decision

Episode Date: August 14, 2026

Ellis Ross, Conservative MP and former Haisla chief councillor, joins to explain Aboriginal title, private property, reconciliation, UNDRIP, Indigenous economic development, major projects, Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney’s record with host Chief Aaron Pete.Send us Fan MailSupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

What has Ottawa taught you about why governments remain so ineffective at improving people's lives? It's not about the objectives of resolving something like poverty, which is tough to do for governments, by the way. But it's about a roundabout way of just getting elected, which is not why I got into this game at all. Is the Cowichin decision leading towards reconciliation? If the decision is upheld and you're talking about properties, you're talking about property taxes, you're talking about water, sewer, electricity. You're talking about all kinds of different zoning. So you're against the criminalization

of what is often called Indian Residential School denialism? I'm against anything that actually restricts the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression. I'm against any of that. What are your reflections on the performance of Prime Minister Mark Carney? I really measure success on the finished product.

And I haven't seen a finished product yet come out of Mark Carney. Will Pierre Pollyev's leadership survive? Ellis Ross, when we last spoke, you were serving provincially and much of our conversation focused on poverty in indigenous communities, you have now gone from Heisla Council to the BC legislature to Parliament. What has Ottawa taught you about why governments remain so ineffective at improving people's lives?

There's a number of reasons for that. But mainly the politics. I thought the politics in the BC legislature was pretty bad. It's just as bad, if not worse, in Ottawa. It's not about practicality. It's not about the objectives of resolving something like poverty, which is tough to do for governments, by the way. But it's about a roundabout way of just getting elected,

which is not why I got into this game at all. It's not what provided the results for my band. if you've got to really make some really tough decisions to resolve an issue like poverty or get the economy going, for example, you've got to make some really tough decisions. And politicians are not geared up to make those kind of decisions. But that really sums it up for me, given where I come from, from a small chief and counsel. In 2020, Evan Solomon moderated your memorable debate with Pam Palmitter, over the last year. coastal gas link indigenous leadership and the blockades. He is now a liberal cabinet minister.

Does his move from journalism into partisan politics cause you to reassess how he moderated the debate or would be unfair to judge his past journalism through the lens of what he chose to do later? No, well, the moderator didn't really have much to do in that. And in any interviews, I really gave, the moderator I thought was really just there to kind of referee the process. So I didn't really

put any of the blame on how that interview went or the content of that conversation went. I just thought the subject matter itself was really, really off base. And it really didn't cover

the substance of what really happened in Kintamat. Because, yes, I was trying to resolve poverty. I was trying to resolve unemployment and everything I comes with that, the violence of poverty, including suicides. But the way we did went about it was participating in processes that allowed these projects to get gone.

That kick-started our economy that got us out of poverty, got us employed. But that conversation never got there because it turned out that it wasn't really a debate about natives of economy or poverty. it turned out more to be about an environmental conversation debate, which ironically is where we got those projects going was from the environmental standpoint through the BC Environment Assessment and the Federal Environmental Assessment. So, yeah, I don't think the moderator had much to do that.

I thought the content of the conversation was really the issue. Can I ask? I have tried to invite Pam Palmer to appear on this show, to get her take on all of these issues and to see where the, if any of her views have changed on the crimes of poverty and how that impacts communities and how it will just reshape a kid's life if they are sexually abused and they'll never be able to reach their full potential. And it doesn't, it still doesn't feel like we've grappled

with the importance of that conversation. And she, because I've interviewed people like Francis Widowson, like Tim Tealman, who have extreme views about the unmarked grave story, and all of these things, but I'm willing to speak with anybody to try and understand their perspectives. It doesn't mean I endorse them. It doesn't mean I agree with them. But it means that there's an importance to the conversation.

And she will not speak to me or Sean Carlton because they believe I platform deniers. What is your take on how I should approach these things? You're taking the right approach. I mean, this is the problem I have when we talk about, say, subject matter like truth and reconciliation. For the truth, you've got to talk the truth. You've got to speak the truth. You've got to know the truth.

And for that, you need facts. And so I don't see how we have this conversation unless it's a hard conversation. And really, the conversations I've had were with native leaders all across BC and Canada that were dealing with the same issues that we were dealing with. And yes, they're not fun subjects to talk about. but if you want to resolve it, you got to face it head on. And you've got to be really stark about the reality of not only like what you see as a leader, but probably what you grew up with. Now I'm talking about growing up as a native on reserve.

But in my adult years, I actually was a native living off reserve. And yes, the issues are kind of different, but they're rooted. And the same foundation of what makes Aboriginal poverty so unmanageable. We managed it. We resolved the majority of our issues in Kedimet. But it was through a wide range of different processes connected to independence, the economy. So basically the individual is right to succeed or fail on their own terms. and that's a really tough conversation to have, really tough.

So if you haven't lived it, if you haven't lived it, it's really hard to describe it. So you latch on to any other reason why you shouldn't promote economic development within First Nation communities or cultures for that matter. So it's tough conversation to have. As you may know, to Kemploops to Sequapmek, KAMLUPS First Nation, did research GPR ground penetrating radar and believed that they had found 215 unmarked graves and that's how it was reported in the CBC, Globe and Mail, the New York Times.

And since then, the Globe and Mail has come out and said there's not evidence to support that there is in fact unmarked graves there. But there may be, and more excavations needed. The nation received around $12 million to do that excavation work and to date, none of that has been done. And so it's led many people, Francis Widows and Candice, Malcolm, many to come out and go, if you can provide evidence, then you need to either excavate or stop making the claim. And from my understanding, Chief Roseanne Kazimir has basically said,

we will one day maybe excavate, but that will be up to our community. We're not sure. It may take 100 years to get there. What is your take on where we stand on this specific file? Well, what was the flashpoint? you can't deny it. And at the time, I've always been about

the true definition of reconciliation, not the political definition that we see today. Because back when that all came out as a story, I noticed a lot of non-natives Canadians wanted to be part of the story. They wanted to be part of the future going forward together. But there was resistance from the native community.

And this was a good example. My whole perspective of the time, I went down there, and I thought, so this is a great chance for Canada to face its past on facts and evidence if you just dig up the remains and identify them. And it wouldn't just stop their identification in my mind. I thought this would be a great chance of a repatriation. So you dig up the remains, you cross-reference it with records, and then bring those remains back to the native communities for a proper burial.

That would have been a huge moment in Canadian history. If all this was done correctly, the federal government would have been involved, the provincial government would have been involved. The community in question would have had a big ceremony with all the chiefs and all the regalia it would have been a whole process to bringing the remains home. But it was all predicated at one point. Can we clarify whether or not these are human remains or not? And I think that's the fundamental question

that's getting muddied now. Because as soon as you question it, you're turned into a residential school denier when really that's not what they're talking about. And I think it's caused so much division when really this was a chance for Canadians to understand their past and start building something forward together. Because up until 2017, things were going fairly well. The courts have already said how we're supposed to reconcile, how we're supposed to move together forward, because let's face it, none of us are going anywhere. then this kind of stalled that process.

And I just think that the best way out of this is yet is to dig up the domains, verify them, and bring them home. Why is that so controversial? I've interviewed many people on what I would call the political left, and I've spoken to Karen Restwell, who you may know, I've spoken to Tara Henley, I've spoken to many people on this issue. And there's a deep fear about saying that we just need to actually excavate and determine what is true and what's not true.

And that doesn't take away from the rest of the history. This is a flashpoint, but it doesn't remove the other truths that we know to be verified and confirmed. And you're right that many people have stood on this issue and said, there's not the evidence to support this claim at this stage. So let's just confirm what is true and what's not true and then continue on the path forward as laid out. Because I think it was so politicized. And I think it got out of control of the cameras banned themselves. And even they admitted that they couldn't verify exactly what the remains were. And if you match it up with the documentation of the records, the death records,

of some of these students, you know, there's a lot of evidence out there that points to what is the reality of that. And nobody really wants to face that. But I think there's one thing that everybody agrees on, that residential schools, for the most part, it was a dark chapter in Canadian history. And everybody's dwelling in that fact. And I think this brought it to the next level where Canadians were horrified to learn that this might be a reality

in terms of the remains that might be in the ground. But the word might is a big word when it comes to this. So I think everybody's kind of scared of what the outcome might be. And I for myself, I just thought, okay, if you do identify some remains and you do repatriate them and have a proper barrel, that's perfect. That'll feed the healing between our two societies. But let's say you don't find anything and it's not confirmed. that doesn't make the issue of residential schools go away. That doesn't make the treatment of Aboriginal people in Canada

over the last 150 years go away. I think the conversation still got to continue, but with a different context and take the politics out of it. And just, I mean, Canadians want to reconcile. You can't fix the past. Let's face it, you can't fix the past. And to look through the lens of today and look at the history in any context is not fair. But at least Canadians want to acknowledge and want to understand what happened back then

and they want to build something forward going forward. I agree with that. It's a great opportunity. And everybody makes mistakes. I make them all the time. That doesn't actually take away from my intent to build a better Canada or a better society. I mean, I don't know. I'd never come across anybody as perfect.

It's human to be wrong. So I just think take the politics out of it and let's go after truth with facts and then we can start talking really about reconciliation. I've asked many people this question and with no disrespect to anybody's previous answer, I haven't found an answer that's satisfying to me. How do we approach people who came out early on this issue

and took a lot of tomatoes and a lot of sticks in regards to this. I'm talking. And maybe not in a good way, like Dallas Brody, who comes out with a sign that says nobody's found. Francis Widowson, who goes around to university campuses with a sandwich board saying, no, nobody's found in these things. They came out early, and they may end up being correct in the final analysis. We don't know until we excavate. But they have taken a lot of negativity. They've been called deniers.

they have been ostracized. I've been invited to speak about the unmarked grave story in my perspective on it, but they don't want Dallas, Brody, Francis, Widows, Tim, Tio, and these people who are willing to come out. Now, again, I don't have to agree with their tactics, but it's a conversation that many people don't want to have. And so their approach, while aggressive, could be what the moment was calling for in order to get Canadians to grapple with a very tough conversation about the validity of the story. how do you think we should approach people who came out early on the story? Well, I get it. I understand it. And from what I read and what I heard, what they were saying,

they were just trying to get to the heart of the matter in terms of getting the facts. And they couldn't get it. And given the sensitivity of what they were talking about, I could see how people were getting upset. But to politicize it like that is where it really went off the rails. But to get even deeper into this, I'm a firm believer in the freedoms that Canada provides to everybody in Canada. It's one of the things that makes Canada unique in the world.

And we're talking about freedom of speech. And that's what we're talking about in turn to those people I came out early. We're talking about freedom of religion. We're freedom of freedom of expression. but to really prove that you believe in those freedoms, you have to accept those opinions. I mean, when you start talking about censorship, and you start talking about how you want to talk about a real sensitive topic,

but you can't because maybe the government is talking about finding you or sending you to jail, that is not what Canada is about. That's not how Canada was built. It's not what they envisioned. So no matter what the topic, I mean we're talking about sensitive topics like the Holocaust, for example, talking about other genocides happening in Africa, where we're talking about racial wars in Serbia and Bosnia, all these sensitive topics that nobody really wants to talk to about what is at the heart of the matter. In other countries, you could go to jail for talking about that.

But in Canada, no matter how pleasant, and I've been in part, part of a lot of unpleasant conversations, but I've never said that person with that opinion should go to jail. I mean, to believe in the Charter of Rights in Canada is to say you can have your opinion, but no matter how insensitive it comes across, you've got to respect the freedom of speech that actually allows that to happen in Canada. And that goes for anything, not just residential schools. And I do appreciate listening to the different opinions from all spectrums, whether you're talking about the left, the right, the middle. But ultimately, you've got to, at some point, if you want to resolve it, you've got to come down to truth and facts.

So you're against the criminalization of what is often called in the residential school denialism? I'm against anything that actually restricts the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression. I'm against any of that. the bar has got to be so high for a government to restrict your freedom of speech. It's got to be really high. And I always question whether or not Canadians understand when they're talking about

amending their freedoms, they're actually putting into the hands of politicians. And to ask a politician to create legislation that speaks to your morals or your values, yeah. I'm not sure about that. So one of the reasons why I believe so much in freedoms is because First Nations never had it. My ancestors didn't have the right to vote until recently.

We didn't have the right to hire lawyers. We didn't have the right to have pot-platches. We didn't have the right to own land unless we enfranchised. We didn't have rights. And so I come out as a politician in 2003 and I started to read the conference. I start through the Charter. I start through the Indian Act. And I think, you know, with the tools that we have in place today, there's a way to fix our future as aboriginals. And at the same time, we can strengthen Canada. But I don't see how you strengthen Canada when you weaken the freedoms. I mean, you really got to fight hard to protect your freedoms. You can't be apathetic about it. And I think it's really worth fighting. for when you're talking about Don. Ellis, you're probably one of the best people to ask about this.

I often feel like because I'm commenting on these issues that I'm not reflective of many indigenous people. And I'm sure you've struggled with that feeling as well of like there is kind of your prototypical First Nation person who would likely think that we should rest deniers that anything that goes against the environment is a terrible thing and that doesn't often get, Like that kind of stereotype of First Nations people.

And you nor I reflect that kind of typical First Nation person that people will think of in their heads when they think of someone. And so I don't always know how to approach issues because I don't want to pretend I'm reflective of every First Nations person, nor do you. But we're often put in these circumstances where we're speaking about really important issues on the stage. How do you grapple with that balance of it's your perspective, but you also led a community for a very long time? and now you're still being put in that position of reflecting First Nations perspectives but often when we go out and speak they're like well we don't hear that from other First Nations people

how do you digest that and work through it? Well it comes down to the freedom of expression and everybody's right to their own opinion and it goes both ways by the way I've heard some horrible conversations about people talking about colonialists or settlers And that's, to put a negative spin on that, to talk about how evil the colonialists are, the settlers, or how First Nations like us mean you are assimilated, we're selling out somehow because we promote anti-poverty measures that include economic development.

That's offensive. But it's still your right to say it. It's still your right to have that opinion. I mean, that's a good thing about Canada, no matter how offensive your opinion is, how uninformed or informed you are, it doesn't matter. I think what we're really talking about

what the basis of that is, is tolerance. Now, I'm not talking about extreme hate, extreme violence to justify your opinion, whether you're talking about the far left or you're talking about the far right. Not talking about that. I'm talking about the adults in the room that can have a civil conversation and we can walk away and say, hey, we did agree or we didn't agree, but still, we understand each other.

I was told this a long time ago as a basketball player. The elders used to come into our practices and raise hell on us for not working hard enough. But this one elder came in one night and he was talking about our work ethic. And he said, remember. The younger generation is always watching you, and they're going to build on what you've done or haven't done. So keep that in mind with you guys out here. So I took that to the level of being a political figure

when we're talking about these issues. If I'm just hammering it on residential schools or colonialism or settlers, I know my kids are watching. I know my grandkids are watching. And at the very least, I should tell them, you should be tolerant of other people's perspectives and opinions. That's what's going to make a stronger country. That's what's going to foster reconciliation.

But if you're adamant that someone should go to jail or get fined, is that really the country you want to live in? You want a police state where somebody's going to be watching what you say or what you post? And you're going to be criminalized for that? Given where natives come from under the Internet Act, I don't think we should be going too far back. I think we should be strengthening our freedoms. Many First Nations voters and organizations have traditionally aligned with the liberals or NDP,

but values such as family responsibility, local autonomy, entrepreneurship, stewardship, and suspicion of centralized government can also be described as conservative. Why has the Conservative Party not converted those shared values into stronger indigenous support? That's a good question. I don't get the First Nations support as an MLA or as an MP, and most of it is attached to their parents voting NDP or their grandparents voting NDP. Back at a time when First Nations issues didn't matter,

there was only a few political parties talking about at the time. And so I think there's that emotional allegiance to them. But I get questioned a lot as an average. Aboriginal, from other Aborigines saying, how come you're a conservative? And my point is, why aren't you a conservative? I believe in justice. I believe in equality. I believe in independence, not only as chief and counsels, but for the individual themselves.

I believe in all of that, and that's why I joined the conservative party. And so, and that's what I learned as a young man in my village. and also as a chief and council representative. It was my people that wanted more place presence in our community. It was our people that wanted justice for crimes made against them. Even today, we still want that. And we still want the services. With no tax base in our community,

we relied heavily on the Indian Act funding that came from Maudoa before, but we wanted more because we were deficient and, say, fire protection. we're deficient in our clinic. We're deficient in our public works. So if nobody understands the Indian Act funding, if you need, say, $100,000 to run your public works, under the Indian Act, they'll give you 70%. And they'll say, good luck with that remaining 30%.

And if you're a band that has no money, you're trying to find ways to get that extra 30%. and with no tax base you know you can't go to your band members and tell them hey can you give me 30% to buy a new garbage truck you can't do that

so you're looking at different ways and different tools that municipalities might have or a provincial government might have and you got to be creative so it's a lot of different things that affect me but it all comes down to

what is the best for the First Nations that can actually help make the region, the country and the province stronger. Because we did in Kinnamat. We resolved all his issues, and we didn't override anybody's rights. We didn't affect anybody's properties. And we made the country stronger. Is the Cowichin decision leading towards reconciliation? It depends on what happens next.

Number one, we got to wait for the outcome. the appeal. That's going to take years. The uncertainty around the land itself is going to sit there for quite a while until that decision is reached. And if the decision is upheld, in my mind, there's two consequences. Number one, you can have to deal with some type of jurisdictional framework to talk about how this is co-managed from the first day's circumstances. perspective as well as from a municipality and a provincial perspective.

That is, that, that raises a whole part of different questions. Because if it does come down to that and you're talking about properties, you're talking about property taxes, you're talking about water, sewer, electricity, you're talking about all kinds of different zoning. Let's face, a lot of chief and councils have no experience in. they have none of that because we don't have those types of policies

on reserve but on the other hand the other option as well is maybe it comes down to some type of compensation land, money or both who's to say but

there's too many factors in play now you've got the decisions you've got to wait for but you also got the TRIPA which is formal legislation in BC. And sooner or later, that's going to get inserted. I know it's not absurd right now, but it is being thrown on the table right now for other issues.

So it's going to get even more complicated if things keep going away, it's going, because nobody seems to have an answer, apart from saying maybe we'll amend the Constitution to protect property. But even that, Do you do it as a country or you do it province by province? It's going to be a long time before that the story has a conclusion.

Can the Aboriginal title and fee simple title coexist on the same parcel meaningfully? Well, yeah, because it doesn't Kittamat. But it all depends on what your objective is. So in Kittamat, our village, we acquired three, pieces of private property. And we kept it in fee simple status. Because business

likes certainty. And we didn't want to rewrite the whole book on land regulations or taxation or leases. So we used existing processes. But we never gave up our rights and titles that land. We never gave it up. It's still there.

It's not official. It's not in writing. You don't see it anywhere. but it's there but we use existing processes to actually make sure that it's run in a way that's consistent with BC and federal laws and it works there's no real need

for us to insert our aboriginal into it but we know it's there so it can work but one of the issues I brought up When we're dealing with this kind of issue, I said, why do you want this responsibility? Why?

Like, when you start to manage land like this and you want to take it on, you know, lock, stock and barrel, you want to exclude the municipality, you want to exclude the province and the feds, you've got to rewrite the book now. And we're talking about responsibility of the land. And more importantly, you're talking about liability. Something happens in a chunk of land there. You can't go running back to Canada. or BC. It's your signature on that decision. You're the ones who got to pay for it. Are you ready for that? Because we're talking insurance. We're talking court cases. We're talking all power stuff.

It's much better to actually go with an existing process. Maybe down the line there, you become an organization that has a continuity and the corporate memory to actually deal with us. But right now, we're not there. And right now the mechanisms that BC employees and Canada employees, they work. They work for the benefit of all of us, not just First Nations. So for us, yeah, it definitely works. But there are so many different designations of land in BC and Canada that if you understand it, you can put together a framework of how to deal with the different designations. And it's just private lines as one of those components. When does reconciliation end?

Oh. Well, I don't go with the political definition of reconciliation. I go with the definition that was laid out by the courts. And the court's definition is mainly about reconciling rights and title interests with crown interests in terms of title. and to that end it was really about when the crown is aware of a decision

that they're going to make that might affect Aboriginal as entitled then they've got to consult and accommodate the best of their ability to reconcile the two worlds that's all that's all chaos now

with the Cowichin and the private land and stuff but that that that decision was made in the interest of society overall. No, we're not talking about a veto. We're not talking about, you know, one side winning or losing.

We're talking about what is best for society. So under that definition, it probably doesn't end until maybe a First Nation signs a treaty with BC in Canada. And you give up your asserted rights and title for defined rights and title. and then it becomes a different type of cooperative agreement. But if you're a non-treaty band, then every time a decision comes up that affects your rights and title, then that reconciliation process has to kick in.

Do you support the new proposed pipeline? To Vancouver? Yes, the one proposed by Premier Daniel Smith. I've never really, I've never really supported anything outright. I've always actually wanted to learn the process in terms of how these projects get approved. I got my start in the council on environmental issues for Kitamatt for past damage. We had 60 years of industrial damage.

And so to understand how we got there was an eye-opener, but to understand going forward how these projects get approved, is more important in terms of how do you address environmental issues, say around a marsh, or around an old growth area, or a berry picking area, for example, and then how do you address average or style of parallel to that? So it's not that I don't support or support the pipeline, it's just that I don't understand the process that they're considering. I don't get it. I get environmental assessments.

I read the Federal Environmental Assessment Act years ago. I read it again. I know the BC Environmental Assessment. I know the permitting. I know what it takes to get a project completed and started. What the federal government and the major projects office are talking about is not really lining up with how I've learned to get projects built.

I mean, you do want the highest environmental standards, but they haven't really talked about how they're going to uphold those environmental standards with this fast-tracking process that if it stops, and I haven't gotten any real clear answers and how it's going to work. If you're going to fast-track it,

you're going to have to omit some parts of the Environmental Assessment Act that people aren't aware of. I mean, to do a project and a time span, I know it's possible. But I don't understand how they can be open and transparent with the Canadian public on saying they're going to uphold the highest environmental standards, but what you're doing in a timeframe that's never been seen before? And I think that's probably one of the reasons why they haven't really initiated any new projects. All the projects they've announced were already projects that have been to works for years,

already three courts complete. So I'm kind of questioning when do they come out to announce their process and what's that going to entail? In April, you submitted a detailed parliamentary question asking how the major project's office would protect Aboriginal and treaty rights, provide nations with a sufficient capacity

and preserve environmental safeguards. What should happen from your perspective when a project is in the national interest but affects First Nations affected First Nations remain opposed. Well, the thing about it is you can oppose, you can support. But the courts have already laid down that you must consult. And if the Crown, and to a lesser extent, the proponent has done their job.

They've done everything they could to consult and accommodate. And the First Nations still opposes. while the courts have said, Crown, if you've done your job and you did it the best of your ability, then you still have the right to make a decision saying that you've exhausted every avenue to consult the comedy.

And you're doing it to protect society's interests. So I still stick with that. The Haida court case of 2004 lays it out quite clearly. And Chil Coulton later on 10 years later brought it to a higher level. Now what's confusing things is DRIPA, United Nations Declaration Rights and DRIZUS people in Ottawa and the DRIPA legislation in BC.

That's what's confused things. That's got nothing to do with the courts of Canada. That came from United Nations, a body that has no clue on how far and how advanced Canada has come in terms of dealing with Aboriginal issues. So you've taken a, foreign entity and you've taken their narrative and you've plunked it down in a country

that is doing its best to resolve Aboriginal issues. And they, yeah, it wasn't perfect. But at least you resolved one of the fundamental questions is the exact your question. What do we do with a First Nation that still opposes? Yeah, you do as much as you can. but to be fair to society who still wants doctors, nurses, roads, communications,

you want all the services and privileges that Canadians enjoy today, government's got a duty to look out for that. And they're probably both at the higher levels, Aboriginal rights and title and society's interests. But let's face it, the trans-canadian pipeline, there's a lot of persons that still oppose that.

but Canada did as much they could to consult and they still made that decision. Only in Canada, there was First Nations and entities that still opposed it. But Canada beasties still they made their decision. What were the results? Canada got more money. They fed, not across the board, of course, but they fed that back into infrastructure. They fed it back into highways for terrorists, bridges. some of the services that people depend on,

it should go back to that. And that that actually resolves the idea of raising taxes or cutting services for that matter. Journalist Robert Fife from the Globe and Mail recently told me he does not believe Pierre Pollyev will remain conservative leader through the next summer. He believes he will be done by Christmas. Will Pierre Pollyev's leadership survive?

I don't know. That's not for me. I just know that the principles for the conservatives is what I aligned with, and that's why I joined them. But I found out about Pierre Pauly of Law and before he became leader. I was watching him on Committee on CPAC. And I was very impressed with his focus in committee and his knowledge.

And I'm still impressed with him. I don't think people have really seen the true Polyev. He's actually, I don't characterize him as a politician. I really don't. I just think that he's a guy who truly cares about Canada, and he's got the background. It's not a great background to come from, where he comes from. But he's turned that into something else.

I think he's a good leader. I think he's really what Canada needs. Canada is lacking a vision right now. They're lacking discipline. Affordability is through the roof. The relationship of the United States is not great. It's getting worse. The security of the Arctic,

when we're talking about China and Russia, encroaching on Canadian sovereign waters, that's going to come to head pretty quick. I really think that the best choice Canadians can make now is select the leader that will make the tough decisions and not just sticks with politics and grand announcements. So I think Canada really needs them. How do you reflect? There's a frequently circulated line that he said, which is, I'll quote directly,

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. money will not solve it. And he was speaking about Aboriginal people in June 2008 around the time. Stephen Harper made his apology about Indian residential schools. Do you agree with him? Well, the way he said it, of course. That's what the issue was. And to my recollection, he apologized the next day. But you know, I've seen this across all. I've seen this all across political parties. I had, like the NDP in BC, for example, I had a debate by LNG, and the NDP

debated that for future generations of aboriginals, aboriginal should not be looking at LNG. I mean, when I was in MLA, there was politicians that were laughing at my friend, Roy Jones Jr., talking about how his people didn't even like him and even laughed at his nickname. I mean, you see these transgressions all across the different political parties really not knowing what it's like to be an Aboriginal. And so they make these remarks from the outside looking in in, without knowing what it's really like to be an Aboriginal growing up.

And all it takes is a little bit of education. All it takes is to be around one of us, and provide you insight into what is really. really like. Like Billy Moran, for example. Same kind of background, right? But he sees a bigger vision. And he's just like me. He wants to bring the

native community together and the non-native community together. And like I say, it goes both ways. Like, I don't condone any of those kind of comments. In the same manner, I don't condone anybody talking about settlers or colonialists or assimilated. Like, I'm not the only one that gets called assimilated.

I've seen other Aboriginal leaders get called that. And worse, they get called apples, right on the outside and white on the inside. That kind of conversation is not needed, especially now. I think we're at a turning point in terms of so many different issues. This is not the time for divisiveness. now is the time that they pull together. If we want to counter to survive going into the next five, ten years.

Former Chief Billy Moran did come on the show, and he shared his experience with being invited to cross the floor over to Mark Carney. Were you invited to cross the floor over to the liberals? No, I wasn't invited. I don't think they want to invite me. I think I'm a little too hardened in my views. And I believe do as you say, say as you do. And I believe in getting things done.

I believe in justice. So, no, I think they learned pretty quick that I'm not the guy to approach. What are your thoughts on those floor crossings? There's many Canadians who fear that something was offered, something was provided to encourage them to cross the floor beyond just a polite invitation. What are your thoughts? Well, there's no rule against it. There's no legislation. For me, and I'm not talking about anybody else.

I'm just talking about myself. It all comes down to your morals, your values, my integrity, my character. I've never believed in walking away from somebody. I mean, the conversation back when Zemblea was, I was going to, to go join John Rustad with the newly formed BC Conservatives. But people forget that during the leadership race for the BCLUllibals, I was a candidate, and I made a commitment that I said that if I win or lose the leadership candidate, I'm still going to stick around, and I'm still going to be an M.A.

And I'm still going to help the B C liberals. And I stuck to that. Yeah, the offers were there for me to cross the floor to be a B.C. Conservatives. but I still remember the commitment and the promise I made. And so when I became an MP, I said, look, I'm going to finish on my term. Like I said, I'm going to do. But then I'm not going to run again. I'm going to run for a federal conservative.

So I think it comes down to what your values are and what your constituents think. I made a commitment. I ran under the conservative banner to my constituents. I said, yeah, I'm going to run for the fellow conservatives. And I'm going to champion the riding. that's what I'll do as a conservative and I can't go back on that. You're surrounded by members of parliament

from all political backgrounds. How many people do you think percentage-wise hold those same type of values about representing dancing with the one that brought you that kind of mentality, that integrity that you're talking about? How many people do you think in Ottawa hold that type of integrity? That's a tough quote. There's a lot of people there.

Like, there's a lot of conservatives as well. I mean, some of the conservatives that I knew that crossed the floor, I thought never in a million years would they cross. Just based on what they said in the house, what they talked about, it was a total shocker when a couple of them crossed the floor. But it's really hard to say. And let you get up and you openly admit it to people that I will never cross the floor, I'll never back down on this.

and whether or not you're willing to follow up on that with your actions. So I'm not really aware of how many people have, I'm sure there is a lot of them. I mean, I know for a few that I've in our circle I talk to a lot, I know then they're going to be a conservative with or without government.

They're going to be conservative. It's based on their value system in terms of freedoms, crime, justice, economy, fiscal responsibility in terms of the budget and spending. I mean, those people I talk to, I think are never, never in a million dollars will cross the floor. But I haven't talked to a lot of them in turn to the House of Commons itself. I've had Globe and journalists, Globe and Mail journalists, Robert Fife and Tony Keller on. Robert Fife described Mark Carney as having a remarkable year was his words.

Tony Keller confirmed he believes that Mark Carney's also had a remarkable year. What are your reflections on the performance of Prime Minister Mark Carney? Well, I come from the world of doing stuff. Like, LNG Canada didn't materialize out of nothing. Cedar LNG was a component of the agreement we signed with LNG Canada. We signed forest agreements. We acquired land. We built things.

So I really measure success on the finished product. And I haven't seen a finished product yet come out of Mark Carney. I've seen the announcements. But a couple examples was the idea that somehow Mark Carney was going to handle Donald Trump. And now every day you hear some news story about more terrorists coming from, United States. You see the comment that he made that the intermediate powers

should unite under one banner as a way to compete with the higher superpowers. And then trying to walk that comment back, I mean, you're dealing with a superpower. You're dealing with one of the biggest economies in the world.

And yet you're making these comments. and this is what I took twice my bank council brought in professional negotiating courses and in all those courses I don't remember the instructor telling us

that it's a good idea to insult the person you're negotiating with I mean one of the things that the liberal said is what's the difference between what's so great about Canada and the Prime Minister said, oh, the greatest thing is that we're not Americans. Why say that?

I mean, this is not how you negotiate. Granted, this is on a larger scale. But Canada, you've got some resources and you got some advantages that you should be using if you can understand the mentality of the United States. You know, I thought this was common knowledge.

And I guess it's not. I went to this conference in Alberta a few years ago as an MLA, and I was invited to this fireplace discussion, and they had an ex-democrat senator. And after his speech, they asked for questions. And so I texted my question, and they chose my question. I asked him, said, so what do Americans think about the soft food lumber agreement? and the senator, here's a good question. He's asking, what do we think about the sovereign loan agreement?

He said, we don't. He said, Canadians, you think you're the only ones that have to deal with employment and your economy? We do too. But we also have to deal with global security. We have to deal with foreign countries. We have to deal with China. We have to deal with the Arctic. We have to deal with so much.

he said, but have you ever come, have you guys ever come to Washington and talked about how we cooperate on how we look after, how we look after North America? Because that's what Americans have to think about. They feel they have responsibility and duty to the world. And I've thought a lot about that. It's because we're always thinking about the perspective of me, me, me.

You know, I'm the one getting the, the dirty end of the stick. And this is what they teach you in negotiation courses. You know, you got an objective, great. But the guy on the other side of the table, they got an objective too. Now, how do you make those both objectives happen at the same time? That's the trick. That's what you're trying to resolve.

So I don't get, you know, what the strategy is behind this and what really has been accomplished. Apart from announcing projects that have already been in works for years, But I do care about the country. That's basically why I stay so involved. A few more questions. Thank you so much for being willing to share your time. There's a claim that Mark Carney has moved politically right since taking office.

Do you agree with that assessment? No, I don't. I know he's taking some of the conservative ideas, like getting rid of the carbon tax, for example. But I don't think he's moved right. I don't think we'll know for sure where he's moving until he actually accomplishes something. Maybe the pipeline of Vancouver is the accomplishment. Maybe that's it. But there'll be so much to accomplish within that context.

You'll have to fulfill the Alberta MOU, for example, and all those terms and conditions inside that, you'll have to resolve the killer whale campaign that's coming up. And you'll have to resolve how you fast track not only the environmental assessment for that, but you'll have to fast track how do you address Aboriginal as a title in that same equation. So, yeah, I don't think he's actually done enough yet to see, to prove whether or not he's moved far to the right or not. In the 2020 provincial election, your mother, was dying, but she insisted on voting and a ballot box was brought to her bedside.

When the ballots were counted, you won Kidamatt Village by a single vote. Do you know whether or not that was hers? And what did that moment mean to you? My mother was one of my biggest supporters. She didn't understand the issues that I was trying to deal with in terms of LNG or our structure redevelopment or, but she was my supporter. and she always made the point to vote and I wasn't aware that she had done that

and she actually passed away on her birthday January 1st and it was when I was told about that like I'd never won the vote in the Aboriginal community even though I'm Aboriginal even though I'm trying to resolve Aboriginal poverty using the tools and mechanisms that are available right now.

But when, she often talked to me about how surprised she was about not only how far our community had gone, but how far I had gone, because I didn't graduate. I'm born, raised on reserve, and

made all the same mistakes other I originally made. But for some unknown reason, from a higher power, I was kept out of prison, I was kept off the streets, I was kept out of drug abuse. I did the alcohol abuse big time. But when she was trying to explain it to me, she was using native words because there's no English words to describe it. And I was trying to wrap my head around. And now that I'm older, I can see what she meant. Because now I have

grandkids. And I have a vision for them. But it's completely different from the vision my mom had for me. like she was just struggling to put food in the table. She was knitting socks and, you know, sewing the holes in our socks and our shirts and, you know, pinching her pennies. So it meant a lot. It still means a lot. I still think about them quite often.

Both my dad and my mom. But my mom, in particular, because she didn't understand exactly what I was doing, but she believed fully in it. believed that was the answer. And both heard my dad went to residential school and they believed so firmly in what I was doing.

It's, that there was a few people like that for my wife. I don't want to call it just blind allegiance, but the faith and confidence that they had me was, it was overwhelming. Thank you for sharing your time, Mr. Ross. I have to say, uh,

watching that debate you did with Pam Palmer, it shaped me in ways I'm still seeing come out because I'm now chief of my community. And as we spoke the first time, it shaped my belief that that needs to be the central focus. And I believe there's two broad camps, one focused on Aboriginal rights and title and one focused on socioeconomic conditions. And I fall in this camp because of that debate you did. Because I couldn't see Pam Palmitter's argument carrying water when I'd go into in my community and see the living circumstances to choose, oh, we're not going to do a pipeline and I'm going to leave these people in poverty. It just doesn't make an ounce of sense to me when I see people who aren't able to reach their full potential. Like, we broke through when so

many others didn't. And so we have a responsibility to make sure that future generation has that opportunity. And so I'm a student of how you think about these issues, I have learned a lot through it. And I'm just always grateful when our paths cross because that was a defining moment my understanding. It contributed to me wanting to be the Evan Solomon sitting and interviewing people and having two ideas kind of clash and see which one carries weight amongst the public and just really encouraged me to move in the direction that I have. So I'm just always privileged to speak with you. Oh, thanks you having them back. And stick with it. It's not a glorious, there won't be thanks

along the way, but when you do get there and you accomplish it and all your people are succeeding, you know, you'll appreciate it. You'll thank yourself and maybe someone will thank you. So keep it up. Thank you.