First principles: Indigenous Financial Solutions CEO and founder Scott Patles-Richardson on why industry is a cornerstone on the road to reconciliation

About two decades ago, Scott Patles-Richardson was approached by an organization representing 50 First Nations communities across Manitoba.
At the time, Patles-Richardson was a senior manager of corporate banking at Scotiabank, where he handled major commercial clients throughout western Canada.
Still, his interest was piqued: the company, Tribal Councils Investment Group of Manitoba, Ltd. (TCIG), oversaw a diverse portfolio across sectors, with a stated mission of operating “with an Indigenous world view, an eye on sustainability, and with a strong commitment to the promise of economic reconciliation.”
Though Patles-Richardson was a corporate finance veteran (before Scotiabank, he spent seven years at RBC), the offer was compelling. As a member of Pabineau First Nation in New Brunswick, he was drawn to the idea of leveraging his background to shift the business model to empower other members of Indigenous communities.
He joined TCIG as a vice president and general manager — and that decision laid the foundation for his ongoing drive toward economic reconciliation. Since then, Patles-Richardson has brokered key deals for First Nations communities as a land claim negotiator, structured governance and business plans as the CEO of private equity firm Métis Infinity Investments and transformed a foundering business into the thriving Nations Translation Group, which he owns in full partnership with Little Red River Cree Nation.
And 10 years ago, he founded Indigenous Financial Solutions, a First Nations — owned corporation that works to help Indigenous communities build capacity, finance projects and create jobs and infrastructure.
The idea that business is a fundamental aspect of reconciliation is not new — indeed, it’s the crux of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action #92. But Patles-Richardson’s perspective and expertise make him a particularly powerful force in this realm — and provide him with invaluable insights into the complexities of the path forward. Here, he explains why economics and cultural preservation go hand in hand.
Unfortunately, at least at that time, there weren’t many First Nation individuals in corporate finance. A group of First Nations approached me to join a private equity fund they’d set up in Manitoba dedicated to more institutional investments. For me, it was a choice to deploy my skill sets within Indigenous communities to help those communities prosper economically. When I told my dad, he wasn’t too happy — I had this plum job at one of the Big Five banks, and you know, the Baby Boomer generation is more like, “Stick with your job. Be loyal. Other opportunities will come.” I don’t think he really understood what I was doing. But for me, it was the start of what became my passion for entrepreneurship.
That’s a deep, deep question, one that I don’t know if I can answer — I’m sure people smarter than me have failed in doing so. But looking at the legacy of the Indian Act to start with, as governing First Nations on reserve, we weren’t allowed to hire lawyers. Lawyers weren’t allowed to hire Indians. That really set things back — imagine your lands being stolen, expropriated, and you’re not able to take any legal counsel.
This is why we have this glut in land claims, because now the courts have recognized First Nations, and First Nations citizens have been able to come out from under the Indian Act, in many ways. But — I’m generalizing here, because there are some pockets of excellence, for sure — communities were managing with poverty, with massive unemployment on reserves, dealing with trauma from residential schools, the ’60s scoop and other policies meant to separate us from our cultures.
My view is that there’s a multi-faceted approach to work toward reconciliation and parity for Indigenous communities. Healing from trauma has to occur, and I’m hoping some of these [court] settlements can allow people to move forward and seek the help they need. But also, communities need to be able to get back to their land base, and to be included in the conversation of industry.
I’ve actually found industry is in many ways ahead of government, because they recognized that there could be opposition to their projects. Some of the earliest partnerships involved the Quebec Cree going to New York and the UN when Quebec Hydro was trying to develop projects in their territory. There was a lot of press, and international pressure for Quebec Hydro and the province to come to the table and find a way to coexist.
The early iron ore agreements were sort of the birthplace of some of the impact benefit agreements that the mining industry and the energy industry started to take on. “Hey, we have this project; you can sit at the table to help ensure we’re doing things in a good environmental way.” And providing training and capacity to get local folks working on their projects, or providing contracting opportunities. 
Collectively, there’s billions of dollars in First Nations trust money. Yet each community is treated like a retail investor. For example, a community might get a $50-million settlement. They open up a trust and the money is put into a balanced mutual fund or ETF. Meanwhile, you know, CPP or large pension funds have access to alternative assets and all kinds of investments.
On top of that, these First Nations pay retail fees. So they’re paying like any one of us who went and put our measly little money into the investment trust. We’re seeing an evolution now where some of our institutions, like the First Nations Management Board, are developing more sophisticated tools that are geared toward our communities, an aggregation of our balance sheets to come together and get better rates and access alternative assets.
We’re seeing bond issuance, for key infrastructure projects. So there’s an evolution. And, some of our own community members are driving some of that innovation. I’m enthused by it.
In general terms, business is business. You need to fulfil a demand in the supply or service chain. In my experience, though, there’s a more holistic approach to Indigenous ways of doing business. I’ve heard it coined the quadruple bottom line instead of just the bottom line. Profit is one driver — it generates cash flow, and if a company is a living entity, that working capital is its lifeblood. But there’s also an environmental driver.
Are we doing everything we can to do this sustainably? Are we creating local jobs and building capacity in our communities to participate in these opportunities? Then it comes back to: is this supporting the sustainability of our culture, our language, our ways? I’d argue that Indigenous communities were some of the early adopters of the ESG standards that are now coming about.
We’re seeing it happen now in boardrooms. Take the example of ESG, which is on people’s minds: What’s our carbon footprint? Are we being good global citizens? We can’t build a model simply on growth. If I’m going to fish a lake that has a million fish, and every year I take more than are being produced, and every year I want to grow my company, so I want more fish next year and the year after, and other companies are doing the same thing, eventually there’ll be no fish.
You could argue the same thing about forestry. Obviously, it can be replenished through the right practices, but if it’s built on a growth platform that supersedes sustainability, you’re going to be in trouble, and it’s going to impact our biodiversity and our way of living. You could even take the example of commercial real estate — if everybody has a growth model, eventually we’d occupy all of the land and there would be no animals, no living trees or food. It comes back to: How do you create a sustainable business model versus one just focused on growth? I don’t know that the market is there yet, but we’re seeing some economic impacts in some business practices, and we’re seeing pushback, especially from the younger generation, who are demanding a say in their Earth.
I talked about reconciliation being multi-faceted, and that’s in the TRC — but the TRC isn’t anything new. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) had great recommendations [in its 1996 report], some of the same themes we’re talking about, and it got put on a shelf and not really implemented.
The multi-faceted approach is really about the economic piece, because things cost money, whether that’s housing, the social envelopes of running our communities, government and governance. Participation in industry creates more flexibility for nations to decide where they deploy their capital, including into their own social programs or language preservation. A lot of the time, it’s only through scale that there’s success.
I look at my own community, in the Mi’kmaw culture — there’s several pockets that have preserved their language, and my community is not one of them. We have fewer than a handful of speakers. As elders pass, we might even be down to zero. We’re a small reserve; we don’t have our own school, and they’re not really teaching Mi’kmaq in city schools.
We can look at language preservation as one example of where the culture has been able to thrive, but it’s all precarious, because we need to put resources into those practices. So my view is that the economic side, participation in industry and business, is important.
It’s not a panacea, but it’s part of the solution. I’m in my lane, and there’s great people dealing with trauma and social services, great people working on cultural preservation and knowledge keepers. We all have a space. No one is above anybody else. Working together, we can hopefully preserve traditional practices and also participate in a meaningful way in Canada’s prosperity — and our own.