Government Operations Committee on Oct. 16th, 2024

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I'm going to stop you right there as I have a limited amount of time.

This indigenous set-aside program is valued at over a billion dollars every year. Are there other corporations that you can identify that claim to be indigenous-led and benefiting indigenous communities but that are, in fact, just shell companies?

[Crystal Semaganis]

There's the Red Sky Métis Independent Nation, the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Painted Feather Woodland Métis. We have identified over 300 fraudulent Métis organizations that exist throughout Canada, primarily in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. They are all listed on our website. They exist as corporations, such as the Red Sky Métis Independent Nation, which signs on to resource extraction agreements and then seeks to enter into resource extraction and economic development in the name of indigenous engagement. However, they're not indigenous; they are settlers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Would you be able to provide that list to the committee? Would it be easy to extract that so you could provide it, or would it be best to just look at your website?

[Crystal Semaganis]

We do have a partial list. It has not been updated since September. As I mentioned before, we operate solely on volunteers. We have absolutely no financial resources. I have dedicated—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll track it down. Thanks very much.

Mr. Bains, please go ahead, sir, for five minutes.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of our witnesses for joining us today for this very important study.

Mr. Chair, before I begin my round of questions, I do have a small motion to move:

That, given the chair made a unilateral decision to cancel the meeting on October 10, 2024, then called a meeting with less than the usual practice of 48 hours of notice during a constituency week without consulting other parties, the committee members request that the chair consult and obtain the consensus of the parties for calling meetings during constituency weeks and respect a minimum 48-hour notice period, while adhering, as much as possible, to the committee's usual schedule.

This should be in everybody's—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you, Mr. Bains.

Mr. Genuis, go ahead.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

This is clearly not on the matter at hand, Chair. I think Mr. Bains would be well within his rights to give notice of this motion and move it at the appropriate time. We have witnesses who are here.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

It's my time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Sorry, but I'm going to interrupt both of you.

We're not in committee business. You did not put your motion on notice, and I don't believe it's an at-hand motion. If you want to read it into the record and then bring it up on Tuesday, you are welcome to.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

I would like to challenge your decision there, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I will have the clerk take a vote.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was here when the vote was being taken.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It wouldn't have mattered, Mr. Coteau, but thanks. It doesn't matter. We'll record your vote, though, so don't worry.

The chair is overruled.

Continue, Mr. Bains.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr Chair.

I believe the motion has been emailed in both languages to everybody's inbox.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are you speaking on the motion, Mr. Bains?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Yes, I'll just briefly speak to it.

As you know, sir, it's very difficult for people like me from the west coast to make our way down to Ottawa when we don't have an ample amount of time to get there for some of these important studies. We've seen this on a number of occasions.

At the same time, constituency weeks for us are an opportunity to do extremely important work on several priorities that we are working on. Today especially, there were several interim housing projects that we were working on, and if I had had ample notice, I could have made adjustments to those things. It disrupted several community partners' schedules. Again, all of this work is important. I believe you can appreciate that.

If we can get to an official ruling from you on this motion with respect to what's stated in it, it would be appreciated. It would be appreciated if you could follow some of the guidelines that we are all used to and that are stated for us in the appropriate manner on how we conduct committees and committee business.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I have Mr. Genuis, Mr. Brock and Mr. Zuberi.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

This is really frustrating. We've all come here to work and to hear from the witnesses. I know that Liberals have a caucus revolt to plan, I guess, but they should be willing to come to committee and ask questions of the witnesses. This is a study that we've been doing for a long time. People were aware of this study happening. This is information that we need to hear.

Frankly, the motion was just moved. It's a procedural motion completely unrelated to the testimony that we're hearing. This is a tactic from Liberal MPs who want to silence the witnesses, who are frankly calling them out. These are witnesses who are calling Liberals out for their grotesque mismanagement of a program that was supposed to benefit indigenous people. We have a witness here from the Ghost Warrior Society talking about how, under this government, there's been significant growth in non-indigenous insiders appropriating for themselves benefits that are supposed to be for indigenous people.

I want to hear this testimony. If government members have a response to try to justify or explain their failures, they should be willing to engage in dialogue with this witness. Instead, we have a procedural motion moved that's clearly out of order, that clearly could be dealt with at another time, that clearly could be discussed at a meeting next week with proper notice, and we have witnesses here. We should hear from these witnesses instead of countenancing this Liberal tactic to try to silence witnesses who have been critical of their approach.

I'm very surprised to see members of other parties supporting the government in overruling a fair ruling by the chair saying that this motion was not in order. I think we need to hear from these indigenous leaders, who have made the time to come to Ottawa to give their feedback and who are contributing constructively to our study and our work. It is really surprising to see the government, in the middle of this testimony, move this motion, which is effectively preventing these indigenous leaders from sharing their experience and is preventing us from getting to the bottom of this Liberal corruption within the indigenous procurement program, where non-indigenous, well-connected insiders have taken advantage of this program.

With that in mind, Chair, I hope that we will be able to get back to the witnesses.

I'm happy to review this motion. There may be details that we can discuss procedurally in terms of how we govern our business going forward. I think Conservatives would be very open to a reasonable discussion of this motion, but not at a time when it's clearly out of order—or overruling the chair to say that it's in order when it's not—and trying to shut down witnesses in the process.

I would now move that the committee proceed to hear from the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

That is a dilatory motion. We will take a vote. The motion is to return to hear the witness testimony.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

On a point of order, don't we have a motion here—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes. Mr. Genuis's is a dilatory motion, so we have to—

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

It's dilatory. I understand. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mrs. Atwin.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

On a point of order, I think that you have to move to adjourn. It's not actually a dilatory motion.