Government Operations Committee on Oct. 24th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Do you wish to continue to speak on it? No.

Mrs. Goodridge, go ahead on the amendment.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Yes, thank you.

I fail to understand why they wouldn't want the committee to report to the House. I think it's important, so I would like a justification as to why that part was removed as well.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

It's because it can then be a concurrence debate in the House. We really want to make sure that we study this in OGGO and that we continue to have our questions answered.

It's an important piece that if there's fraudulent activity with regard to the indigenous business directory, we get to the bottom of it. However, it has to be within the proper authority of each department. We know it's within the contracting department, specifically, which can oversee some of that work, so I think it's more appropriate to have that recommendation and to not have it reported to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Great.

I have you, Mrs. Goodridge, and then I have Mrs. Block on the amendment.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I think it's interesting that the justification given was simply that they don't want this to be talked about in any other capacity. That's quite shocking, and Canadians would probably be very disappointed to find out they're so nervous about how bad indigenous procurement has been that they're terrified of it being discussed in the chamber.

I'll leave it at that. I urge colleagues to vote against this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Great.

I have Mrs. Block and then Ms. Vignola.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I certainly support the intervention of my colleague, Mrs. Goodridge. We understand that groups like the AFN and other rights holders have been raising concerns with regard to the funding of non-first nations-led groups to receive this funding. If their concerns are legitimate and it is found that many non-indigenous companies have received funding, I think it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to bring this to the House to ensure that these funds are recovered from these non-indigenous businesses and put back into that set-aside for indigenous businesses to enable them to contribute to the economy of indigenous communities.

I, too, am shocked to hear them state simply that they don't want to have this discussed in the House of Commons, and I would encourage all members to vote against this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

I have Ms. Vignola and then Mr. Kusmierczyk.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

In either case, it's food for thought.

If funds were given to a company and the government received a service, on a purely economic level, there was no fraud as such. Where there has been fraud is in the attribution or appropriation of an identity that was not the one the company claimed to have. At that point, it would be exceedingly difficult to have relevant grounds for recovering the money. Other punitive measures would have to be taken against this company for appropriating an identity that was not its own. That's mostly what I was thinking.

If the company hasn't given 33% of the value of the contract to an Indigenous subcontractor, I'd be all for recovering the money. That said, if there was a service, but the company fraudulently appropriated an identity that wasn't its own, recovering the money may not be the right method to use.

I'm sharing my thoughts with you. I'm not amending the motion. I'm just thinking out loud to see if there isn't some way to reword either the amendment or the original motion to reflect the perspective I've just shared.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

I have Mr. Kusmierczyk. Go ahead, sir.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to reiterate that one of the challenges with the way that the original motion is framed is that it puts the onus on Indigenous Services Canada to recover those funds. I think it needs to be highlighted and emphasized that it really is up to each contracting department to recover the funds.

That's point number one: that the motion itself is based on the false premise that Indigenous Services Canada has the power to recover those funds. It is up to each contracting department or agency to do that. I think it's important to distinguish that. Therefore, I have concerns with, issues with or really questions about the premise of the motion.

The second point is that I support the amendment that my colleague brought forward. I believe this is something we can handle as a committee. I believe that the motion reflects the fact that it is this committee that is concerned with the funds to be recovered. We think that's important.

However, I also want to put this debate and conversation into a bit of context here as well, especially for folks who might just be tuning in to this conversation.

I think it was in 2022 that the Treasury Board amended the mandatory procedures for contracts awarded to indigenous businesses. It committed the government to award 5% of the total aggregate of federal contracts to indigenous businesses each and every year. The target that was set in 2022 was 5%.

If you look at the report that was provided by Indigenous Services Canada on that mandatory minimum 5% threshold, you'll find that actually 6.27% of all contracts were awarded to indigenous businesses. That means $1.6 billion of all contracts went directly to indigenous businesses. This is tremendous progress. There is more work to be done, no doubt, but it is incredible progress—remarkable, when you think about it. Sixty-eight organizations, which represent about 72%—so, three-quarters of federal departments and organizations—exceeded that target, which is quite remarkable.

One of the strongest departments is Shared Services Canada, which awarded the highest percentage to indigenous businesses; it amounted to 19.3% of its contracts, valued at $476.3 million. Again, this is a very big step forward in terms of indigenous procurement.

Yes, we want to make sure that indigenous procurement is as efficient and effective as possible. We absolutely need to focus on audits and on making sure that the funds are distributed effectively and efficiently. However, this program is a success on so many different fronts. Of course, there's more work to do, and we're always looking at improving it. Listening to the deputy minister talk about how important indigenous procurement is to achieving economic reconciliation....

The two go hand in hand. As Plato—one of the indigenous-led businesses—wrote to the committee, “With an effective Indigenous procurement system in place, the Government could make tremendous steps forward toward economic reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.”

I also think it's important for us to focus on the context of what a strong and successful indigenous procurement program is. What was alluded to in a line of questioning on a couple of occasions was the importance of co-development. Co-development is really foundational to the success of the indigenous procurement strategy. It truly is at the heart of any updates and changes to indigenous procurement policies. It is very much driven from the bottom up, as opposed to the top down. It truly is a partnership.

Again, go back to $1.6 billion in contracts. One of the questions raised, as well, that bears repeating is.... It was pointed out that there are about 2,900 companies in the indigenous business directory, and upwards of 60,000 indigenous businesses across Canada. The question is, how do we make sure we eliminate barriers to federal procurement contracts for indigenous businesses, so we can get that number up even higher?

With that, Mr. Chair, I wanted to provide a bit of context for this motion—frame it in the context of a successful indigenous procurement program and one we are all looking forward, as partners, to improving, expanding and growing. Again, early results are in. It is a very successful program that has yielded tremendous benefits and results.

With that, I will yield the floor, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Mr. Boulerice, go ahead on the amendment.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My comments pertain to a technical detail. I understand the English version well, but the French version is difficult to understand, because some words are missing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes, I heard that from the clerk as well. Whoever did the French version.... I apologize for saying this, but it's apparently not very correct.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

It's not readable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I've heard “not readable” as well. I've asked the clerk to make the adjustments and send it out.

Does anyone else wish to speak on the amendment?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I would like to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Jowhari, go ahead.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With one minute, I know that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry.

As soon as we're done, we'll send the email out. Keep an eye out for it.

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice, for bringing that up.

Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'd like to make three points.

Number one, as all of my colleagues on this side and, I believe, some of the opposition said, this is not within the jurisdiction of ISC. They don't have the mandate or capability to dictate to anyone to return the money. Recommendation is one thing. As part of an audit they're doing, I'm sure they're making that recommendation.

Number two, I agree with Julie on this: If the services were rendered and if the end client has signed off on it, it becomes a matter of whether those services and the contract were received under false pretenses, which goes into a separate realm of processes to recover that money.

I want to go back and tell everyone—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Jowhari, we are out of resources. You have 30 seconds, maximum.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

If you listen to what Madam Wilson was telling us, there are other entities looking at this. She paused because she could not elaborate. Our jumping on this thing—reporting to the House, running another concurrence and blocking the House's agenda—is not going to serve the purpose.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I am going to adjourn. We're out of time.

I think that Ms. Wilson was referring solely to Dalian and not the other companies, but perhaps you can provide that to us quickly.

[Gina Wilson]

Can I just clarify something? I don't have financial authority to recover money, goods and services—