Madam Speaker, we are here today to talk about an issue that is fundamental for the future of Canada and Quebec, and that is economic development in indigenous communities. The report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs reminds us of the barriers that these communities face and that make it so that the desired outcomes are not always achieved as originally planned.
This is a critical issue, but it is also a mirror that reflects the systemic challenges that are deeply rooted in our society. Reconciliation will not be possible without eliminating the barriers that continue to prevent first nations, Métis and Inuit people from receiving a fair share of this country's wealth. This is not just a matter of social justice. It is also a matter of economic development for all.
Barriers to economic development in indigenous communities include the legacy of colonialism, the failure to recognize indigenous jurisdiction, inadequate infrastructure, administrative burdens, limited access to capital, and limited access to federal procurement opportunities. First nations, Inuit and Métis face similar barriers, but they are also confronted with challenges that are unique to their situation and their relationship with the federal government. Financial challenges are systemic barriers.
One of the major barriers we face is access to funding. Take, for example, the down payment required for any new project in an indigenous context. It is a minimum of 10%, a requirement that does not take into account the economic realities of these communities, where many people live below the poverty line. Under these conditions, how can anyone hope to undertake an economic development initiative, be it commercial or residential, if the down payment is an insurmountable barrier?
However, there is a solution in the Yänonhchia' program. This innovative solution is available in Quebec. Not only does it give the middle class on first nations lands access to home ownership, but it also stimulates a unique market for high-quality properties in various communities. We asked the Minister of Finance to provide funding at the earliest opportunity for this program, which helps members of communities in need finally get a roof over their heads. The message is clear: It is important to set the right priorities.
In addition, access to private capital continues to be a major challenge. With few exceptions, financial institutions continue to show clear mistrust toward indigenous businesses, making it extremely difficult for them to access credit. This situation is even more complex in remote communities, where transportation and material costs make projects considerably more expensive. These disadvantages mean that even the simplest construction project in indigenous communities like Wemotaci or Chisasibi will invariably be more expensive than in cities like Montreal or Quebec City. It is not just a difference in costs, it is a systemic inequality that hinders development projects from the outset.
Red tape is another factor hindering growth. The administrative burden created by governments, both federal and provincial, should not be underestimated. Funding programs are complex and poorly adapted to the realities of indigenous workers and entrepreneurs. In many cases, an application has to be submitted several times to different departments, resulting in lengthy delays and missed opportunities. This cumbersome bureaucracy only slows down the development of indigenous initiatives.
We need a more flexible, responsive approach. Decisions need to be made faster. Most importantly, the reality of indigenous communities must be taken into account in the funding allocation process. Continuing to apply rigid processes designed in urban centres is not going to solve the issue of economic development for indigenous peoples. We need decentralization, a redistribution of decision-making powers and real political will to facilitate, not impede, first nations development for and by first nations.
Geographic isolation is also a factor in economic exclusion. As we know, indigenous communities face unique, often invisible, but deeply structural barriers. They do not all experience the same realities. Some are close to urban areas and are in a better position to meet program requirements. Others, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer wisely pointed out, have difficulties that are not taken into account, such as geographic isolation. This leads to exorbitant supplier costs and creates glaring inequalities between regions. These are known as remoteness costs.
Let us not forget that many of these communities are located in remote regions, where access to infrastructure and basic services is still a survival issue. This translates into extra supplier costs, but also a lack of access to economic opportunities, federal contracts, and sometimes even adequate banking or financial services. Indigenous populations are doubly penalized, both by their remoteness and by the systemic indifference of the government, which does not adapt its policies to meet their specific needs.
Economic reconciliation is a necessity for all. It is essential to remember that economic reconciliation is not possible without the active participation of indigenous peoples in the Canadian economy. Reconciliation is about more than symbolic statements or gestures. It requires meaningful action and financial commitments. Studies show that if indigenous communities had the same economic opportunities as the other Canadians, the Canadian economy as a whole would benefit considerably. Canada could increase its GDP significantly, by $30 billion to $100 billion annually, simply by allowing indigenous people to access equitable employment conditions, training and funding. It is in everyone's interest to remove barriers to indigenous economic inclusion. We are not asking for a favour here. We are offering an opportunity that must be seized for the good of all of Canada.
The proposed opportunities are a way forward. To overcome these barriers, we must work together. It is imperative that the Government of Canada implement policies and strategies that take the realities of indigenous peoples into account. Obviously, this entails implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, in collaboration with the communities, and formally recognizing indigenous legal frameworks for the management of their lands.
The government also needs to support the creation and expansion of indigenous financial institutions that can meet the specific needs of indigenous businesses. The aboriginal financial institution network needs to be strengthened and adequately funded to foster access to capital and support the growth of indigenous businesses. Finally, it is crucial to review federal funding and procurement mechanisms to allow for genuine and equitable participation by indigenous businesses in major infrastructure and development projects in Canada. Indigenous initiatives funds must be tailored to the specific needs of each community, taking geographic, social and economic aspects into consideration.
Economic reconciliation also requires solid land bases. The Bloc Québécois has long been calling on the federal government to commit to land reform, and we will continue to push for that as long as necessary. We suggest partnering with indigenous groups to undertake a vast nation-to-nation effort to sign agreements and treaties that are entered into freely and are mutually agreed upon, allowing for more self-determination for these communities.
We propose that the comprehensive land claims policy be completely overhauled, which would include creating an independent entity to manage and resolve these claims. Appointing a commissioner, as set out in Bill C‑77, is a step in the right direction, because the federal government is not only slow, it is often a bad partner. Of course, the commissioner will be able to point all that out, but that should not stop the federal government from taking action now. Two weeks ago, when the ministers appeared before the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, none of these crucial issues were addressed.
It currently takes 18 years on average to settle a land claim, including two years seeking government approvals. This creates a significant financial burden for first nations. That is already excessively long, but for some nations, the process can take up to 30 years. We are talking about three decades. These barriers sometimes lead communities to give up and settle for the Indian Act as the lesser of two evils. This policy needs to be addressed urgently because it impedes true, equal partnerships between nations.
Since 2018, repealing the Indian Act has been one of the objectives of the relationship framework between the Government of Canada and indigenous peoples. However, the Liberal government is being too passive on this issue. In Quebec, only the Cree and Naskapi nations have been emancipated from this act, thanks to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the resulting legislation.
When it comes to land claims, the situation in Quebec is similar to the one in British Columbia, where a large part of the territory is still not covered by treaties. This is problematic because the comprehensive land claim settlement process is excessively long and costly. It frustrates many first nations representatives without contributing toward improving living conditions in the communities. Furthermore, these negotiations create an extremely significant financial burden for indigenous communities. Currently, they are financed through a combination of repayable loans and non-repayable contributions. In 2013, the accrued debt, with interest, was $817 million. This funding model acts as a disincentive for communities, prolongs negotiations and forces some nations to give up when they run out of money.
The problems with this policy do not stop there. The federal government is both judge and jury in these negotiations. The process is so long that negotiators frequently come and go, increasing delays even further, because each new negotiator has to get up to speed on the complex files. Furthermore, these negotiators have no flexibility and constantly have to ask the government to approve their decisions. In short, the existing process does not resolve disputes efficiently or help eliminate colonial structures such as the Indian Act.
With respect to the additions to reserve policy, it is important to have sufficient funds to enable the 20 or so communities recognized by the federal government to complete the process set out in the policy so they can finally receive the funding they need to ensure the well-being of their members with complete peace of mind. Can the government assure us that there will be enough money this year to enable them to take action? Three first nations in my riding, which is in Quebec, have been displaced. They still have no stable land base. This is unacceptable. I would like to see those communities get their fair share. Too often, they are overlooked. I want to name them.
They are Timiskaming First Nation, Winneway first nation and Hunter's Point first nation, now Wolf Lake.
In this context, I want to underscore the following. This means that there is money that is not going to areas such as health, childhood education or an indigenous police service. It takes too long. Every time there is a hiccup, it seems like everyone is fine with that. At some point there needs to be action. Everyone will need to sit down together and offer solutions. Far too often, first nations issues are put on ice. The government will use any excuse to walk away from the negotiations, and often the real reason is that it just is not listening. Finally, things are left to drag on. Generations have been waiting for answers and results. That is another way to promote self-determination for indigenous peoples, especially back home in Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
The Inuit and Métis also deserve better representation within bodies that reflect on economic reconciliation. The Inuit of Nunavut or Nunavik, like the Red River Métis, are not subject to the Indian Act. However, these indigenous people have unique realities that deserve to be addressed by this government. They need to be better represented within the institutions and organizations set up by the federal government.
While the Red River Métis are now recognized as an indigenous people by the Government of Canada, they continue to face significant challenges in accessing financial resources and economic opportunities due to the delayed recognition of their rights and the federal government's broken promises. For a long time, they have been excluded from the funding and economic development programs available to other indigenous groups. While progress has been made in recent years, these commitments remain lacking.
Despite these barriers, Métis people have shown remarkable resilience and a great potential to develop their own economic initiatives and institutions. However, the lack of appropriate channels for distributing funds and delays in implementing supportive policies continue to impede their ability to build sustainable infrastructure.
The federal government absolutely must keep its promises and put in place funding mechanisms and institutions specifically designed to meet the unique needs of Métis people so that they can fully participate in the Canadian economy and ensure a prosperous future for their communities.
I will digress for a moment. On the weekend, we marked Louis Riel Day. If there is something that Canada should think about, it is how it treated one of its own. The case of Louis Riel is well documented, and we should think about and look back at that history. I think that we have erred for too long. I want to acknowledge president David Chartrand.
Since I only have a little time left, I want to take this opportunity to raise some issues that I think are problematic when it comes to the economic development of first nations. I want to talk about the much-touted 5%. I am talking about recommendation 8 of the report. It is all well and good to say that the government awards 5% of federal contracts to indigenous businesses. However, when it comes to things like GC Strategies or projects like the one in Chalk River that is going to have a major impact on nuclear safety in Quebec and Canada, the indigenous component is often being managed by people who are not really indigenous. They have access to government funds and they are the ones who communicate with the government. The government can then say that it consulted indigenous people in the context of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. However, these indigenous impersonators are not recognized by indigenous people. That is a problem.
“Pretendians” are people who self-identify as indigenous for economic or personal gain. In many cases, it may be a historical error. It is not necessarily a deliberately false claim. However, there are some serious problems at the moment. Fake indigenous claims are being used to gain access to contracts or to earn social licence. Think about the Chalk River project. An association known as the Algonquins of Ontario helped ensure social licence. Meanwhile, the Anishinabe in both Quebec and Ontario, plus 140 municipalities, are opposed to the project. Those who speak for the indigenous people are not the indigenous people.
There is no shortage of examples when it comes to economic development. Bastien Industries produces moccasins that are made in Wendake. This is an example of an economic development project where products are made by hand, with knowledge being passed on from generation to generation. It is an economic driver and source of pride for the community. Unfortunately, the company has no access to government contracts, and yet if the indigenous people who work there want to sell their products in the United States, they will be asked for their Indian status card.
That is not possible in Canada. Those mechanisms do not exist and so identities can be claimed. These companies take second place when contracts are awarded. There is no obligation to do business with indigenous peoples. Actually, the law says there is in theory, but in practice, no mechanism exists. That is a fundamental problem. The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is particularly interested in this. I think we need to delve deeper into the issue of who is indigenous and who is not. At some point, this has a major impact on economic development.
I also want to take this opportunity to raise another issue. To me, it is one of the main solutions. The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs examines it in this report, particularly in the first recommendations. In my opinion, the major solution, which is a philosophical one, is to trust the knowledge of the first nations and develop projects “by and for” indigenous nations. Right now, there are a lot of recommendations. However, I am shocked to see that the study is almost two years old. It is something we have thought about, but not a thing has changed.
This government is on its last legs. It had plenty of time to take action and develop investment funds by and for indigenous peoples. Yänonhchia' comes to mind, along with the initiatives of NACCA, the National Aboriginal Capital Corporation Association, and many others that will provide financial leverage. The government puts structures in place, but often this only creates obstacles and barriers. Basically, indigenous communities are given two years to build a house. However, it takes time to get an architect to approve things. It is much harder to find one in remote areas and in indigenous communities. By the time an architect is found, the deadlines have passed. That is how it works at the federal government. Perhaps only two houses a year per community end up being built. Indigenous populations are growing quickly, and the needs of communities are not currently being met. Some serious reflection is needed, and the solution involves projects by and for indigenous peoples.
In conclusion, urgent action is essential. We have an historic opportunity before us. Removing barriers to economic development for indigenous peoples is not only a moral imperative, but also an economic one. We have a responsibility to right the wrongs of the past and to work together to build a prosperous future for all Canadian and Quebec communities, indigenous and otherwise. Indigenous peoples must be fully integrated into the economy of Canada and Quebec, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is in everyone's best interest. If we want a prosperous, inclusive and truly reconciled Quebec and Canada, we need to invest in the prosperity of indigenous peoples.
Together, as equal partners, we can build a future based on justice, equality and economic reconciliation.
