Debates of Nov. 18th, 2024

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt about the importance of this issue. What I call into question is the Conservatives' choice to continue to play a game of preventing debate inside the chamber, whether it is on opposition day motions, government legislation or private members' bills. Instead, they are focusing on privileges, and then to give themselves a break, they bring in concurrence reports.

Does my colleague across the way not feel any obligation whatsoever to question the leader of the Conservative Party and the self-serving tactic the Conservatives are using on the floor of the House of Commons? It seems to me they are more interested in the Conservative Party and the leader of the Conservative Party's ambitions than they are about the concerns of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, it is actually this member in particular who seems to be very concerned with talking about the leader of the Conservative Party.

It is quite striking to hear him talk about self-serving tactics. We have a situation where a Liberal minister of the Crown pretended to be indigenous, and his company sought contracts with the government on the basis of falsely claiming to be indigenous-owned. That is incredibly inappropriate and self-serving, and it hurts indigenous entrepreneurs and indigenous communities, which are supposed to benefit. This is a critically important issue that the government used to describe as relating to the most important relationship it has, but clearly it is not important enough in the view of the parliamentary secretary.

I think this is an important discussion, and Conservatives will continue to work to get to the bottom of the abuses in the indigenous contracting program in general, and to hold the minister accountable for his despicable actions and abuses of the public trust.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been a dismal experience watching the member for Edmonton Centre. He has been like an ethical dumpster fire from the first day he walked in here. I say that because it has been one issue after another, one red flag after another, yet he was moved up into cabinet. I know there are some hard-working Liberals who will never get near cabinet, but he did.

There is something very egregious about this, because after hundreds of years of deeply racist policies that have tried to destroy indigenous life, culture and the ability to live on the land, we finally had one program that was going to be fair, and what did we see? We saw grifters taking advantage of what should have been a profound commitment to reconciliation. The fact that grifter number one may be sitting in cabinet calls on the Prime Minister to take action, yet he is still standing there refusing to explain how the minister got into this position in the first place.

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

Madam Speaker, for the first time in our parliamentary careers, I find myself agreeing with everything the member for Timmins—James Bay just said. I think it was a call from the member and from the NDP for the minister to be removed from cabinet. Of course he needs to be removed from cabinet.

We see such a contrast. On the one hand, the first indigenous attorney general was removed from the Liberal caucus for refusing to enable Liberal corruption in the SNC-Lavalin affair. Then we have an incredibly corrupt employment minister who was pretending to be indigenous elevated to cabinet.

I hope we will have the NDP's support to continue to fight to get to the bottom of this at every committee, and to send this back to the committee, ordering the minister himself to appear so we can hold him accountable.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Speaker, while the government was worrying about the exposure of its unethical behaviour, there was a blue wave sweeping across the country. The Toronto Argonauts were beating the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. I congratulate the Toronto Argonauts, their quarterback Nick Arbuckle and head coach Ryan Dinwiddie on this remarkable win.

My father was a football referee for 35 years. What would he say now? He would say, “I am throwing the flag on the government's accountability metrics, and assigning a 15-yard penalty and loss of downs for its absence of financial management.” When the Liberals refuse to play by the rules, he would add another five yards for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Is this ethical lapse another demonstration of a top-down lack of ethics in the Liberal government?

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

Madam Speaker, there are actually early reports out that the Minister of Employment was trying to get into the game for free by pretending to be Prince William.

[An hon. member]

Prince Harry.

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

Prince Harry, or both actually.

Madam Speaker, kidding aside, this is a very serious issue and the minister needs to be held accountable. He needs to resign for his deplorable conduct. We need to continue to do the work at committee to get to the bottom of these outrageous abuses, taking advantage of these programs by elite, privileged insiders pretending to be indigenous, including right up to the cabinet.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and add some thoughts on an issue that has always been of great importance to the Government of Canada and, in particular, to the Prime Minister.

We have talked about the whole issue of reconciliation and how, as a government, we have ensured significant budget commitments over the years, but also legislative actions in a very tangible way. I am going to expand on that shortly. Before I do that, I do not want anyone who might be following this debate to believe that the Conservatives are genuinely concerned about the report itself at all. All one needs to do is take a look at the previous member's comments on the report and then reflect on what was being debated earlier today. I would suggest that the whole concept of character assassination has something in common with this. This is more about a multi-million dollar game the Conservatives have played for many weeks, at a great cost.

Substantial legislation is waiting to be debated, both from the government's perspective and from the perspective of private members. However, instead of having that form of debate, the Conservatives continue to bring in concurrence reports to fill time because they are running out of things to say on their privilege motions. Here they have taken a particular issue that has always been important to the government. At the end of the day, I question their motivation for choosing to use this issue as a political game to add to the multi-million dollar filibuster that we have been witnessing for many weeks and, unfortunately, in all likelihood, for many days to come. I look at this from a perspective of lost opportunities and why we need to move on.

When I think of the issue at hand, I think of individuals like Cindy Woodhouse. I think of the passing of Mr. Sinclair, an individual, second to no other in Manitoba, who brought forward the debate on indigenous reconciliation for all Canadians and the important role we all have to play, including here in the House. I was at the funeral, as members from all political parties were.

When the TRC report came out, the leader of the Liberal Party at the time, because it was back in 2015, made the commitment to act on every one of those 94 calls for action. We have seen significant gains. Many have taken the form of legislation that has passed, such as a statutory holiday, indigenous languages and legislation dealing with children. We have also seen significant financial commitments, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $400-plus million toward indigenous entrepreneurs and others since 2015 to encourage partnerships. In the 2024 budget, in fact, we committed $350 million to dealing with issues to increase access to capital.

I think of my home province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg, and the only way we can hit the potential that our province has in the federation is to see reconciliation work. A part of that is to recognize the entrepreneurs and the workers and how, as a national government, we can contribute to it. One of the first things we took initiative on, for example, was the issue of Freedom Road, something Shoal Lake 40 was asking for for many years. Stephen Harper, throughout those years when the leader of the Conservative Party was a cabinet minister with Stephen Harper, said, “No, the federal government does not support Freedom Road.”

It took a change in government. It was not until the current Prime Minister formed the cabinet, and with the support of the national Liberal caucus, that we ultimately saw financing for Freedom Road. Freedom Road has had a profoundly positive impact for Shoal Lake 40. It is not because of Ottawa but more because of the leadership from within the Shoal Lake 40 reserve. These are the people who deserve the credit. What we did as government was recognize the potential and get behind the individual chief and council to ultimately enable it.

We have seen other very successful projects at Shoal Lake 40. They are significant projects, all of which, I would suggest, are indigenous led, from the companies to the workers to the quality that we see, including the water treatment facility. For the community's size, it is a world-class facility, which is there today because of indigenous-led companies and the chief and council. We could also talk about the twinning of Highway 17.

I look at individuals like Sharon Redsky, who often affords me the opportunity to better understand indigenous issues, especially around children and social enterprises and the potential for charitable groups and indigenous organizations to contribute to reconciliation. These are individuals. I think of Chief Kevin Redsky and the leadership the chief and council provide, and how that is making a difference. We as a government have supported that leadership and those developments.

I would suggest that the Conservatives are introducing the report today not because the Conservatives care about the issue. It has more to do with the same sort of subject matter they are talking about with the privilege issue. Let us ask ourselves, have the Conservatives ever, in the last number of years, raised this issue in the form of an opposition day motion? The short answer is no, they have not.

The only reason the Conservatives are raising it today is that, in going through the 100-plus reports, they said it was an issue that they could politicize. They could stand up and continue on with the character assassination of a particular minister. That is their motivation. It is not because they are concerned about indigenous issues. I did not witness that in the last speech by the Conservative member.

Just last week, I had the opportunity to participate in an organization called Raising the Roof. I understand that it actually originated in the province of Ontario. It is a wonderful group. It ensures that it is building a number of homes for non-profits. It ventured into Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the very first time. There was a substantial federal contribution to it, and I had the opportunity to participate in the announcement.

What touched me most in regard to that was the fact that there was a company, Purpose Construction, which is responsible for doing the renovations of a particular home that happens to be in Winnipeg North. It is on Mountain Avenue in what I would classify as the core, traditional, heritage-rich north end of Winnipeg. What would have been a dilapidated two-storey-plus home has now been converted into a wonderful place to call home, not for one, but actually two families. From what I understand, it also has a third area; this is maybe not necessarily for a family, but it could be for someone who is coming in and studying or whatever it might be. We will see that it is for the homeless.

There is another organization, Siloam Mission; this is actually the group that is going to be responsible for, from what I can recall, ensuring that there are tenants going into the facility and managing the facility. They are indigenous tenants. However, I will get back to Purpose Construction because it is more than just the federal government that is increasing the number of homes.

Purpose Construction is an indigenous company that is taking indigenous workers and allowing them to learn a trade and supporting that. The benefits of this particular facility, or home, that is being built go far beyond just providing another home for a couple of families and others. It is touching the community in a very real way, and it is supporting indigenous-led companies and more.

We should keep in mind that the Conservative Party does not support housing initiatives. Most recently, we have seen that with the housing accelerator fund, wherein the federal government is working with other municipalities to ensure that we get more homes built. Many Conservatives are saying that they like that particular program. They are writing to ministers. If there are 18 of them writing, I can only imagine how many others actually support it but are not writing to the Minister of Housing here.

I suspect that the housing announcement by the leader of the Conservative Party, which I have labelled as a dud, demonstrates how it is that the Conservative Party treats supporting indigenous communities. I could talk at great length in regard to the housing issue.

Let us move on to the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Even today, I believe I have heard at least one Conservative member say they want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Conservative Party's official position on the Canada Infrastructure Bank is to get rid of it. If we dig a little deeper, they will give misinformation. They will say that the Canada Infrastructure Bank does not do anything. There are billions of dollars of investments through the Canada Infrastructure Bank that have led to more billions of dollars of investments from other stakeholders. We are talking around $30 billion. The last time I checked, it was getting close to $30 billion.

If we check with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, we will see that the bank has an indigenous equity initiative that is enabling indigenous leaders to tap in and become partners on infrastructure development. There are projects there. How does the Conservative Party of Canada and its shiny new leader respond to that? They say that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a bad idea and that they are going to cut it, just as they say they are going to cut the housing accelerator fund. Their policies are very much dictated by the far right in Canada. We know that.

The progressive nature that used to be in the Conservative Party has completely evaporated; it is more focused on cuts. If we were to broaden it out to expand beyond indigenous communities and just focus on cuts and why they are so relevant, the Conservative Party tries to give the false impression that it cares about indigenous communities; in fact, we know that it is going to cut indigenous funds that are now flowing.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way says that will not happen. The Conservatives are going to cut the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is helping fund some of these capital projects. They are going to cut it, yet they say they are not going to cut it. They are going to cut the housing accelerator fund. Are they trying to tell me that indigenous communities do not benefit through that fund, that there will not be social enterprises, such as Purpose Construction, that are going to participate in renovations and the building of homes?

The Conservative Party needs to reflect and hold its own far-right Conservative leader to account for the careless cuts that it continues to propose all the time, whether the ones I have talked about already or cuts to dental care, pharmacare or child care. That is the Conservative Party today, and it does need to be held to account for that.

The Conservatives bring forward motions for concurrence, not because they are interested in the subject matter but because they are trying to show that the House of Commons is dysfunctional. That is the real purpose of what they are doing.

If we read the motion, Conservatives want to extend it beyond the chamber to standing committees. This is the third one that I can think of right offhand where they want to send a report, and we have hundreds of them, back to the standing committee. They want to tell the standing committee what it has to do; by the way, they also want it to call x, y and z. Why is that? It is because they want to continue the multi-million dollar game at the expense of Canadians; they are more focused on the interests of the leader of the Conservative Party than they are on Canadians.

I say shame on them. They have a responsibility to behave in such a fashion that other agenda items can be debated and passed. I am not just talking government. There is Private Members' Business also. There is a fall economic statement. There is a lot to talk about on the floor of the House of Commons. It is time that the Conservative Party stops its political game and starts thinking about what is in the best interests of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, it is clear from the member's anti-Conservative rant that the Leader of the Opposition lives rent-free in his head. That is about the only person in the whole country living rent-free at the moment.

On the very important subject of indigenous economic development, Conservatives have repeatedly put forward policies aimed at supporting economic development for indigenous peoples. The Liberals' approach has been to oppose efforts by indigenous peoples to prosper through, for instance, Canada's natural resource sectors, as well as to allow elite, non-indigenous fraudsters and phonies, well-connected Liberal insiders, to take advantage of a program that is supposed to benefit indigenous peoples.

We know that the Minister of Employment was misrepresenting his identity, and this amendment would order him to come to committee.

Does the member agree that the minister responsible should be ordered to come to committee and answer questions about his actions?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows that there is absolutely nothing that prevents the standing committee that he is calling for from asking the minister to come before committee. That is not what the issue is. The issue is a filibuster, a multi-million dollar political game in which the leader of the official opposition feels that it is more important to serve his political interests and the Conservative Party's interests than to serve the interests of Canadians. That is the issue.

Yes, I give a lot of attention to the leader of the Conservative Party because I do not trust him, nor do Canadians. The more Canadians understand who the far-right leader actually is, the more they are going to move away from him in droves. At the end of the day, this is a leader who believes in cuts. Those cuts are going to hurt. That is why I am concerned.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to bring us back to the matter at hand today.

In my first question, I pointed out that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women often realizes that indigenous women and girls face certain difficulties. The issue of infrastructure and housing has come up repeatedly in our studies.

My colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, and I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Yänonhchia' initiative. We are talking about housing in indigenous communities, so I will bring us back to that topic. The goal of this initiative is to build projects by and for indigenous peoples, in consultation with them to ensure that they have safe and affordable housing that meets their cultural needs. It is a nation-to-nation discussion. That is our perspective. They wrote a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance asking for the $150 million needed to carry out this initiative.

I would like my colleague to talk about that. Is he familiar with that initiative? Is that the kind of initiative they can discuss among colleagues? Will they consider supporting it in the 2024 fall economic statement?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that I have had the opportunity to know National Chief Cindy Woodhouse for many years. I can say that she is a very outspoken, powerful advocate.

One issue she has talked to me about over the years is housing. I know it is a major concern. I believe that we will continue to work with indigenous people, whether it is through the Prime Minister or the Minister of Housing, because we know that the federal government has an important role to play. This is one reason that the current government, more than any other government, has been there from a financial point of view to support housing.

Not that long ago, I was talking with David Chartrand, the president of the Red River Métis federation. His approach of wanting to see housing built is being achieved, at least in a small way. I believe he recognizes that the federal government is working with the Métis nation and indigenous people as a whole on the housing file.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, reconciliation is an issue because Canada attempted to perpetrate a genocide, and the first step of the genocide was to target the children. The second step was to bring in hunger and forced famine to force people off the land.

I think my colleague would agree that, many days, the House of Commons is like The Jerry Springer Show. However, we are not hearing any talk about the genocide in Gaza or of the fact that, two days ago, Human Rights Watch found that Israel is guilty of crimes against humanity for using famine and targeting children. About 70% of the deaths in Gaza are women and children. That is a targeting of a people to destroy them. We have seen nothing from the Prime Minister on the international stage.

Why do the Liberals continue to tiptoe around a genocide that is happening in real time as the world watches?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have full confidence in our Minister of Foreign Affairs and I appreciate her efforts in working with our allied countries and like-minded countries, whether they are one of the Five Eyes or others, in terms of making sure that we are speaking as one. I would suggest that for more details the member should sit down and talk to her or send her an email, whatever it is that he feels more comfortable with.

What I do know is that myself, the Minister of Northern Affairs, and a number of others were at the Murray Sinclair funeral services to recognize a man who has done so much not only for reconciliation in Manitoba but for our entire country. He has left a legacy that we can all reflect on. One of those things is to take a look at the 94 calls to action and how each and every one of us has a role to play, whether someone is an elected member of Parliament, an MLA or anyone else in society.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I come here, week in and week out, hoping we can get work done on behalf of Canadians. I had great hopes coming here today, but obviously I can see from the members opposite that that is not going to happen. All of us are elected here. We have the great privilege to be here, but that privilege needs to be taken seriously. I came here this week to talk about the wonderful initiatives we are bringing forward, like the housing accelerator fund that some Conservatives want, some do not, and others want but cannot get approval.

My question to my friend is the following. When are the Conservatives going to be ready to get back to work on behalf of all Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I have learned over the years about the Atlantic caucus is that its members are a part of a powerful group as a caucus. One of the best examples I could use on the floor is the Atlantic accord. The Atlantic caucus held the Conservatives to account when the Conservatives refused to support the Atlantic accord, much to the disappointment of all Canadians, let alone individuals who live in Atlantic Canada and call it home.

True to form, the member raised another important issue about the housing accelerator fund. Remember, we now have the leader of the Conservative Party saying they are going to cut that fund. We also have at least 18 Conservatives saying, whoa, wait a minute. They will not say who they are, but they really like this fund. Can colleagues imagine how many have not written the Minister of Housing talking about the benefits of that program? I suspect we could have 50% or more of the Conservative caucus on this issue.

It was a bad idea to oppose the Atlantic accord; it is a bad idea to cut the housing accelerator fund.

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

Madam Speaker, it is striking that the Liberals do not seem to think talking about economic development in indigenous communities is an important topic. It is unbelievable to hear that previous Liberal member characterize it as, in his view, a waste of time.

There was a sleight of hand in the member's previous response to me. The amendment we put forward is important because it is the only way to order the minister to appear. Various committees have asked the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister of Employment to come before a committee and provide an explanation. They have not done so. This motion would create a House order. It is the only way to do it.

Does the member appreciate that that is the only way to do this procedurally and therefore the amendment is important?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, what I appreciate is the fact that the member does not understand. He is wrong. If the member came to the House saying that the standing committee put in the request and the standing committee was refused and that, as a result, Conservatives wanted to be able to push this forward, then he might have some merit to his argument.

It is time that he recognized that what they are trying to do is not about what is in the interest of indigenous communities or Canadians as a whole. It is all about a multi-million dollar filibuster because the Conservative leader is more interested in his personal side and the Conservative Party's than Canadians. That is what is so shameful about the tactics that the Conservatives continue to use every day.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; the member for Victoria, Climate Change; the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, Carbon Pricing.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the member opposite's comments, although I do not necessarily agree with all the things he has said. They have caused me to reflect on what we have been able to do to work toward reconciliation in a very tangible way, whether through budgetary measures or legislative measures.

Is the member aware of any other federal government that has invested as much as this particular government has? If he is, could he tell me which government has actually done that? I would love to make the contrast.

I have a question for the member: Is he at all concerned with the Conservative Party continuing to bring forward amendments to reports that, in essence, send the reports back to committee and provide a list of individuals? Does the member believe that the standing committees should have a little more independence from the Conservatives' outreach?