Evidence of meeting #138 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rural.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chair, in light of what has been said, I think it would be good if one of the recommendations were for the government to provide a better definition of “rural region”. That could be among the recommendations contained in the report.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I think several members are probably already thinking that, on that point.
We're going to suspend for about five minutes to say goodbye to Mr. Anderson and get ready for the second part of our meeting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, we need to approve a couple of our budgets, please. As usual, we'll never spend all the money, but it is our practice to ask for a certain amount.
The first one is for the Canada Post study, for $1,000. Do we have approval for that?
(Motion agreed to)
Perfect, thank you.
The second one is for the McKinsey study, for $2,000.
(Motion agreed to)
That is all approved—wonderful.
Go ahead, Mr. Genuis. I was going to get to the indigenous...but you go ahead.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that we have some time set aside now to discuss the important issue of indigenous procurement and, in particular, some of the abuses of the indigenous procurement system that were much discussed in the media.
You recall that we had concerns about this at OGGO, dating back to the spring, which is why we put forward a motion. It was subsequently amended to both create a subcommittee to study the issue of indigenous procurement and also to request a series of documents that would have helped us understand a variety of issues, but in particular the issue of subcontracting.
The concern is that there is this program that should be designed to benefit indigenous communities, promote economic development and benefit indigenous peoples. However, there appears to be a lack of compliance with or verification of policies around subcontracting, so that what happens is that a very small, qualified indigenous company, maybe including one or two people, receives a contract and then en masse subcontracts the work to non-indigenous companies, so the indigenous communities are not benefiting. The only indigenous people benefiting are the one or two people at this company that simply receives contracts and then does the subcontracting. We also heard concerns about joint ventures between indigenous and non-indigenous companies, which qualify for the indigenous set-aside but substantively don't involve new employment or other economic opportunities for indigenous people.
More recently, just this summer, there were revelations in various media outlets about further abuses. People claimed the qualification of being indigenous and, therefore, the qualification of their companies as being indigenous but without being recognized by any indigenous organization, so that's a further example of abuses.
We started raising this issue in the spring, and in the documents we looked at there is a complete lack of tracking of these subcontracts. What is clear from the documents we received is, again, unfortunately, what I expected, which is that there are a small number of very small companies that are benefiting from this set-aside, whose primary business appears to be subcontracting and, in many cases, subcontracting in a way that provides no benefit back to the people who are supposed to be benefiting.
My preference is that we have a dedicated subcommittee to delve into this issue involving what the Prime Minister has called “the most important relationship”. However, after the motion passed to create the subcommittee, my understanding is that other parties didn't submit names for that subcommittee. I think there was also some confusion around the subcommittee motion and, from informal conversations with colleagues, my understanding is that there is a preference for these issues to be simply dealt with at OGGO instead of a subcommittee of OGGO. I'm comfortable with that as a compromise approach, provided that there is a willingness to do a meaningful study of this issue at this committee.
I think there are many different aspects we need to delve into on this, in a serious and substantive way: To what extent abuses have taken place, how have those abuses taken place and then, also, how is this policy aligning with what should be the objectives of the policy? I think Canadians expect that the objective of indigenous procurement policy is to stimulate opportunity and development for indigenous people. However, when I had an opportunity to ask Minister Hajdu about this, she rejected the premise. She said that the purpose of this policy is simply to verify indigeneity, not to measure or ensure positive economic outcomes for indigenous communities. I'm concerned by that, but even if the purpose of this program is merely to verify the indigenous identity of those who are applying for these procurement set-asides, recent revelations that came out this summer suggest that the program is not even doing that successfully.
I hope we'll be able to have a good, substantial and collaborative study on this issue that will give voice to indigenous Canadians, in particular, and some of the leading indigenous organizations that have been calling for further investigation and reforms here. That will also give us an opportunity to ask substantial questions of ministers and officials.
I'd like to put forward a motion that is different from the original motion. This is a motion not for a subcommittee but rather for a study to take place here. I think members will notice that this motion is not particularly prescriptive. It's relatively open-ended. It gives the committee an opportunity to respond to information that comes. In that sense, I don't think it's particularly controversial, but we'll see.
The motion is this:
That the committee study indigenous procurement and that as part of its study the committee invite the Minister of Indigenous Services of Canada along with relevant officials, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement along with relevant officials, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations with relevant officials, leaders of indigenous nations and national indigenous organizations, and other witnesses submitted to the chair by committee members.
I provided it just this morning, but I believe it's available for distribution, and it has been translated, so the clerk will send it around to members in real time.
I hope this motion is fair and reasonable and will allow us to move forward with this important study in a collaborative and substantive way and help us get to some positive, constructive recommendations we can make.
Anybody who has read the news articles and has looked at the documents we've received, I think, will acknowledge that there is a significant problem here that does require some work, and hopefully we'll be able to do that work together.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
I have a speaking order. I have Mrs. Vignola, and then Mrs. Atwin.
Go ahead, Mrs. Vignola.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is indeed important to study the issue. From what I've heard on the ground, people are required to show their card confirming their indigenous status if they want to get professional contracts in the U.S., but no such screening is done in Canada. So it's a good thing to make sure that the policy in place is truly targeting the right people.
I also agree with the idea of conducting the study at the committee rather than subcommittee level. We'll need to determine the right time to submit our suggestions for witnesses. The sooner the better, of course.
We also need to think about how many hours or meetings we want to devote to this study. We still have several other studies to complete, and all of them are important. I suggest that we determine the number of meetings we want to devote to them, for example two, three or four, to ensure that we can hear all the necessary witnesses. If necessary, we can revise this number, if we want to receive more witnesses.
I believe I need to propose an amendment to suggest a number of meetings, is that right?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Were you looking to have a hard cap on the number of meetings, or a minimum?
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but there was no interpretation at all.
Conservative
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
It would leave us some leeway if, after four meetings, we wanted to add more.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Okay.
We would keep everything the same, except that we would have at least eight hours of meetings.
Do we need to debate the amendment, or can we accept the amendment?
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Can we just have a brief suspension so we can take a look at the wording specifically?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Can we keep it really brief?
Perfect, we'll just suspend for a few minutes.
September 17th, 2024 / 12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We are back.
We are debating Mrs. Vignola's amendment to the motion about setting a minimum of four meetings, eight hours.
Go ahead, Mrs. Atwin.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's clear that there's a lot of confusion about what this program is designed to do and how it operates, so we absolutely should study it. We're certainly in agreement with that. We would like to do it in our OGGO format and not the subcommittee. I think having four meetings makes sense as well.
I really feel, though, that hearing from indigenous leaders and heads of—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Sorry. Because we're on the amendment and not the motion itself, and we're debating the amendment, if you're in agreement with the four meetings, can we just agree to that? Then we can actually debate. Then I'll turn the floor over to you to debate the actual motion.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
I'm leading up to something, as often happens.
Again, with the indigenous leaders piece, and those who are heads of indigenous organizations, I don't believe they would have a lot to contribute on this, outside of the program itself, but we want to hear from indigenous business owners and entrepreneurs. I think they would be able to really shed light on how this works, how they're benefiting. It's not specifically about communities. It's about individuals, those businesses and entrepreneurs, so I think that's where the confusion lies. Even the comment you mentioned about Minister Hajdu's response, it's because it's for individuals. Certainly there are benefits or spinoffs, I would say, for communities, for those living there, in hiring folks from their community, but it's about those individual businesses specifically.
I think we would like to amend the language to include those voices, so I would like to propose a subamendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
No, we're amending.... We're debating just the four hours part.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I think it's more because it's substantive. You're actually amending the motion itself, not Mrs. Vignola's amendment. You can amend hers to do a subamendment for six hours, not eight, but you can't do a subamendment to change the original motion when we're only debating the eight hours and four meetings from Mrs. Vignola.
We just have to agree to hers first—it sounds like it—and then you can do yours.
