Debates of Nov. 18th, 2024

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, I have an excellent example of a government that was proactive for the first nations. It is an economic development success story, perhaps the best in Canada. In fact, this week I met with Ted Moses, given that the Secretariat to the Cree Nation Abitibi-Témiscamingue Economic Alliance gathered in Val-d'Or. It was a pleasure to talk to him. He was one of the key negotiators of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Yes, the Government of Quebec took action. There was the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Hydro‑Québec development. This provided financial levers by and for the Cree, which is now obviously one of the most powerful nations in terms of its economic development. The peace of the braves, by the Parti Québécois, reinforced that. I want to commend Bernard Landry and Ted Moses for their lasting leadership that had a major impact on the generations and the Cree. We see towns like Chisasibi still developing. Other communities need to find inspiration in that. There need to be more modern treaties, more autonomy the first nations.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are repeatedly taking issue with our efforts to get ministers to come to committee to be held accountable for the Liberal indigenous contracting scandal. In fact, the indigenous affairs committee had ministers before it who simply refused to answer questions.

In committee, all opposition parties agreed to order ministers, in particular the Minister of Indigenous Services, back to committee to actually answer those questions. They asked her to be back within two weeks, and the minister is not honouring that request from the committee. Meanwhile, we have committees that need to hear from the Minister of Employment about his misrepresentation of his indigenous identity so that his company could benefit from these same set-asides.

It is clear why the government is complaining about this. It does not want its ministers to appear before committee to be held accountable. The ministers have been asked to appear within certain timelines, and they have not honoured that. This is why what we are putting forward today is necessary for ensuring that ministers will come to committee and answer those questions. Will we have the support of all opposition parties again to say that ministers have to be held accountable and answer questions at committee about what they did and what happened in their portfolio?

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

Madam Speaker, the issue has been presented. A motion in that regard was also moved at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I am very sensitive to the principle, and I want to repeat what I said in my speech earlier.

When someone uses the names of indigenous people, but indigenous people are not the ones getting access to indigenous funding, authorizations or whatever, there is a big problem. Whether it is GC Strategies, this business with the Randys or whatever else, right now, for me, the issue is much broader and more complex. I think this is one area in my colleague's motion that is worth exploring to encourage greater support. I believe we have a responsibility to take an even closer look at the people who are being given power and money. This affects a huge number of people. If we want real truth and reconciliation, we also need the consent of a majority of genuine indigenous people.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his heartfelt interventions on this issue. The whole question of procurement and public contracts is a very sensitive one. We are talking about thousands of contracts and billions of dollars. These are often the places where a lot of corruption and cronyism happens, strangely enough, be it among the Liberals or the Conservatives.

As for awarding 5% of contracts to indigenous companies, we obviously agree with that objective from a reconciliation perspective. That said, a Liberal minister is currently getting raked over the coals for several reasons. There are plenty of potential scandals related to this.

Last week, I attended a meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. One of the things that amazes me is that it is still the federal government that decides which businesses are indigenous. It is not the indigenous communities themselves. I would like my colleague to tell us more about this situation, which seems rather unusual to me.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is absolutely right.

In matters of truth and reconciliation, the concept of truth is fundamental. In a way, history needs to be rewritten, but it must be written by indigenous peoples. That way, we will be able to understand the mechanisms that landed us with non-indigenous people claiming to be indigenous, having access to government contracts and being in a position to approve projects that could be catastrophic, such as the Chalk River project.

The first step is to sit down with first nations, whether they are represented by the Assembly of First Nations or other regional groups. They must be given the power to determine who is first nations, who is indigenous and who is not.

With such a registry, we will be able to move forward, and it will transform this country's image.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech, which was very relevant to this afternoon's debate. He clearly demonstrated that the Indian Act is a systemic impediment to the emancipation of indigenous peoples and indigenous nations.

As I recall, the Liberals promised to change the despicable, offensive law known as the Indian Act nine years ago. They promised to scrap it and create a real law that takes the dignity of indigenous peoples into account.

Why does my colleague think the government has not done that yet?

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

Madam Speaker, the Indian Act is a blot on Canada's history.

I agree that it needs to be repealed. However, I think that we need to be aware that the Indian Act provides a certain security for many first nations people. We will need to sit down with indigenous communities to give them the means, powers and economic tools for self-determination so that they can do even more than is possible under the Indian Act.

Truth and reconciliation is a matter of trust. In the past, Canada proved to first nations that it could not be trusted. We have to rebuild that trust, but unfortunately the Liberal government has failed in that respect. Relations with first nations is one of the first issues on which the Trudeau government lost Canadians' confidence.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member mentioned the Prime Minister's surname. I would remind him that he must not refer to members by name in the House.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, particularly for the comments that he made about the situation involving first nations, indigenous peoples and the nuclear industry.

Could he elaborate on the lack of respect for indigenous people when it comes to the nuclear industry?

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

Madam Speaker, first I will mention one positive aspect of the recommendations. I hope my colleagues take the time to look at the 26 recommendations in this report. There are some positives.

There is a recommendation for the mining industry and the natural resources industry in general. It is to increase ways to support the participation of indigenous peoples in the natural resources industry. There is also the whole training aspect, which is fundamental. Many businesses back home in my region, such as Blais Industries, Moreau and Groupe Rouillier, will also use indigenous businesses to recruit workers and to share power and wealth. I see that as part of the solution.

That is absolutely not what was done at Chalk River. On the contrary, indigenous buy-in was given, which could have a major impact on people's health. Before giving my speech here, I met with the Minister of Natural Resources to discuss these issues. It is sad and cynical that indigenous people have to go to the Supreme Court to overturn a decision on which they were not consulted, because pretendians were consulted instead.

Should the law be strengthened in this regard to bring about change? Absolutely.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues for this important discussion today on the economic barriers that are leading to detrimental impacts on indigenous communities to better serve themselves, their community and all Canadians.

It is not too far in our own history that we looked to indigenous innovation for immense solutions to everyday problems. For example, the baby jumper is something that was invented by an indigenous woman right here in Canada. It is a significant contribution that most indigenous and non-Indigenous children would have access to. Indigenous entrepreneurs and indigenous economic motivators are critical to the success of Canada. However, that being said, there are immense barriers to these kinds of achievements by indigenous people, which is why it is so often the case that they find themselves in difficult circumstances to keep their businesses and operations afloat.

The indigenous and northern affairs committee was asked to study the barriers to indigenous economic development and highlighted a few key aspects of what that could mean within the report. However, I would like to focus today on what we find in the recommendations and speak to some of the challenges we are seeing here in Ottawa. For example, there is the infrastructure gap, and I will be touching on this important deficit, which is largely contributing to indigenous people having less access to our economy. Let me put it into perspective.

Within the immense supply chain in our country there are, for example, railroads, two bands of steel right across the country, but this kind of economic infrastructure in the supply chain is very difficult for indigenous people to participate in when they are so far from infrastructure inputs to get their product to market. Indigenous communities make up an immense part of the economies in northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba and northern British Columbia, but they are still finding the lack of infrastructure a critical barrier. For example, the deficit for infrastructure is over $350 billion for first nations communities and $75 billion for Inuit.

There is a $2.5-billion deficit for infrastructure, and indigenous people have been simply left behind for generations. It is time we catch up. We need a government that is willing to invest in infrastructure to see these communities truly flourish.

Another topic I would like to address is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is true that although economic development in Canada has largely taken place without the consent of indigenous people, we are now on a path that would see indigenous people participate better in the economic development drivers of our country. However, there are still immense barriers to this.

We see, time and time again, that when a first nations, Métis or Inuit community says no, the government ignores it. Indigenous people have fought tooth and nail to see the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples truly adhered to. This gives indigenous people the great ability not just to say yes to projects that benefit them, but to also say no. This is the biggest contrast and challenge that indigenous people have, particularly with Conservative and Liberal governments. Time and time again, indigenous issues and indigenous people are only important when it is convenient to them.

This particular case is another one of those instances where indigenous people have now taken the floor of the House of Commons to speak to the very interesting and deep challenges related to economic development. However, it is against the backdrop of an important moment in our House of Commons where we are being stalemated, because of several instances of concurrence in this place to slow down government legislation, which I understand completely. However, I also understand, and want to point out, that this debate today is critical and should not be taking place on the backs of other critical pieces of work and legislation. This is an important topic, and we have a moment now to speak to it. I would hope that the government representatives are listening.

We have a serious issue with the final topic I will address today, which is indigenous procurement. To back up a bit, procurement for indigenous people is done through a federal program called PSIB, the indigenous business support program, which allows indigenous people to bid on procurement items. When the government is looking for talent acquisition, it would create an offer, have indigenous people bid, and then the successful indigenous company would administer that program. It sounds wonderful. It is a great thing for indigenous businesses, should they be allowed to fairly participate.

There is no framework today that would put the indigenous procurement strategy of the government to a higher standard, one that would not be forcing the Assembly of First Nations to call for real reform within procurement. It would not be that the victims of the lack of procurement are those indigenous businesses, which are the real victims here. It is the indigenous businesses that have done everything right, that played by the rules, that signed all the papers and that got the congratulations and a pat on the back for incorporating their company, only to be met by a system that is rigged by the government and that has benefited, in this particular case, someone named Randy.

This is an obvious instance that requires the government's immediate attention. We need to get directly to the bottom of what has been taking place in the indigenous procurement processes of the government. It is time for someone to be held accountable for the pretendianism that continues to propagate right across this country. Whether it is in social media, in traditional media, in businesses or right here in the House of Commons, there are people who are falsely claiming to be indigenous.

I had a conversation with my sister when the story came up, and she smiled at me and she said that if people want to be indigenous so badly, they should also suffer the consequences. What a thing to say. Today, the lack of access to indigenous business support is the consequence. Being disproportionately impacted by poverty is the condition indigenous people are in.

Can members imagine how much of a slap in the face it is when there is a member of the cabinet claiming to be indigenous for the purposes of accessing an indigenous procurement strategy? That is the issue pertaining to indigenous procurement today. It requires the immediate attention of the government. The AFN, indigenous leaders and, as someone made mention, Métis people are also calling for justice. How can anyone have faith in a system that allows for non-indigenous people's applications to even be heard, let alone eventually accepted and part of the government's procurement process? It is very serious indeed.

I want to speak to the important and critical aspects of the report as it pertains to indigenous self-determination. Indigenous people in Canada have always been subject to a unique relationship. Ever since the onset of colonization in North America, it has always been one of economic coercion. Economic coercion is the story and history of Canada.

We do not even have to look all that far. In my own lifetime, I have heard stories from elders who remember the days of the crooked and greedy Hudson's Bay Company. It was a monopoly here in North America that took such great advantage of indigenous people that there are horrific stories, whether of the delivery of small pox blankets or whether of the fact that indigenous people had to trap so many furs, up to the height of a rifle. That was the cost of it. There was extreme greed by the companies.

What is a shame to hear today is the fact that companies continue in that tradition, whether they are huge, immense, giant natural resource companies that say they would rather sue the nation than work with it, like we have seen in northern Alberta, or whether it is governments getting in the direct way of indigenous people trying to get access to real economic benefit, like what is taking place in Alberta.

In southwest Calgary, Canada's largest first nation development, the Tsuut'ina Nation, is building a master-planned community on 1,200 acres of its land. The $10-billion, mixed-use project will feature 17 million square feet of real estate, including more than 6,500 residential units. However, there are issues related to the ability to permit it by the provincial government.

Now the nation is waiting. It has been waiting and waiting for the government to give it the green light, when it is the nation of those lands. Original stewards have always built homes on their lands since time immemorial, and today a province is saying no. That is limiting economic business and economic opportunity for indigenous people, just as much as pretending to be indigenous for the purpose of trying to access capital. Over and over again we see instances of indigenous entrepreneurs being sidelined, whether in the case of provincial governments, as I just mentioned; in this case, with a federal government program that was meant to help indigenous entrepreneurs in procurement; or in the case of upholding indigenous people's rights.

We often talk about economic reconciliation, a buzzword from my Conservative colleagues, who most particularly want to talk about access to natural resources. I understand this very well, coming from a natural resource community myself, an area that I worked in for quite a long time. I know how these debates go with companies. When companies come in, they are hoping to get a $3,000 barbecue so we do not have to talk about beneficial ownership. I know exactly what it means when a company comes in and says it is going to use our roads and not pay for any operations or maintenance. I know exactly what it means when a company says it is going to give us a sweetheart deal today and walk out 10 years later, leaving the community with a mess to clean up costing billions of dollars.

These are the real economic barriers facing indigenous people, and these are issues we do not talk about. We do not talk about them because of the deep desire to see a partisan benefit. Anytime we talk about indigenous issues in this place, with the Liberals and the Conservatives, it is always about how they can score one on indigenous people. We have to end this. We have to be critical of these issues. Hopefully, we can unite as a House toward a process that deals with indigenous people as the rightful and beneficial owners of their lands and come to a real conclusion, a united conclusion, in the House saying that Canada must respect fundamental rights.

I would like to speak now for a moment about the importance of treaties. Canada undertook, in the 1870s and 1880s, until the late 1920s, a process of historic treaty-making. For the better knowledge of my colleagues, there are several eras of treaties we can delineate. For the topic of this discussion, we are talking about the numbered treaties. For the numbered treaties, one of which I am from, Treaty No. 6, benefits were allocated throughout treaty negotiations and for the treaties themselves. However, the government, as soon as it signed these treaties, walked away and said, no, it knows better and that since it had the land, it is going to legislate these people, put down the Indian Act and never hear of the treaties again.

Today, we are in the courts. The Liberal government and the federal Conservatives have had a whole lifetime of lawsuits against indigenous people based on this decision. There is the clean water legislation, for example. Having clean drinking water would fundamentally increase indigenous people's access to the economy. A federal piece of legislation on that was struck down by the courts when the Conservatives tried to defend it. A Conservative piece of legislation that was struck down for being unconstitutional is now being replaced with another piece of legislation by the Liberals that is barely an improvement.

These are the issues we are talking about. This incremental justice results in massive injustices for indigenous people while we wait and wait and children go by without anything. That is why it is so critical that we speak to the real challenges facing economic development for indigenous communities.

Part of the real issue is capital. The Indian Act, for example, delineates very small, postage stamp pieces of land. For indigenous people to truly be stewards of an economy that is for their own people, their land must grow. The fact that we have reserved them to small, postage stamp pieces of property is an abomination. We must end the apartheid that exists in Canada. We must end the racial legislation that exists under the Indian Act. We must empower indigenous people toward their own destiny.

For thousands of years, indigenous people have traded up and down the St. Lawrence, up and down North America, all the way from Mexico to Tuktoyaktuk, bringing goods and services to people right across this great place. However, the ugly horrors of racism and discrimination clamped down on Canada as the boats of Europe arrived.

Europeans limited indigenous peoples' dignity by saying that they were savage. Today, we reject this term in the hope that we can see indigenous people like me, and like those right across this country, as the true stewards of this place. They are the ones who understand this land and who will hopefully save it from a climate crisis that continues to ravage the world and, most importantly, indigenous people, who are on the front lines of much of this.

There is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a meaningful framework, first ushered in by one of the greatest advocates in Canada, an Alberta first nations chief by the name of Dr. Wilton Littlechild, who is a fantastic and remarkable living giant from Alberta. The nations he serves are largely nations that are in the resource-rich provinces, including my home province.

We have never, at any point in time, have had to delineate between the unfortunate dichotomy that now exists between resource development and resource non-development. These kinds of questions presuppose indigenous peoples' interests. Perhaps indigenous peoples' interests are for their land mass to grow, for example. How do we get to the point of having conversations with indigenous people about their desires? Instead, we have a government that continually wants access to indigenous peoples' resources and lands, and it is finding every single way to do it, even though the courts and the international community have been clear that indigenous people have a fundamental right to their lands and a say in its use. That includes the right to say no.

These are fundamental rights that would ensure clarity for industrial partners. That is what I have been hearing from resource development companies, in particular. They just want clarity. If they can find a way to get clarity on who has those consultative rights, then perhaps those companies, including those of indigenous people, would not have to settle these disputes in court. This would require a government that would be willing to understand and implement treaties in a number of treaty areas. It would also require the government to act in earnest in areas where there is no treaty, fully recognizing that they are indigenous lands.

When we do not recognize this, there is a cost and a consequence. As a matter of fact, we saw this cost and consequence manifest during the last Parliament, when we saw one of the most historic instances of indigenous people saying no. That was in the Wet’suwet’en uprising in British Columbia. They had simply said no to a project, and it resulted in what we are again seeing today: immense violence, such as police officers with chainsaws ripping down doors. There is no reason for this violence in our country. The days of burning indigenous people off their lands are over.

It is time now to respect indigenous people for our perspectives, our knowledge and our ways of being, not simply for having to play defence for the Liberals or the Conservatives any time they bring up an issue concerning indigenous people for their own partisan benefit. That is the only time we debate these issues in the House.

I am asking my colleagues to rise to the occasion, to rise to the true dignity that Murray Sinclair called us to, and there are those who have already invoked his name. He called us to reconciliation because, without it, we will have resistance. Those words live on in my head and in the minds and hearts of indigenous people right across this country. They demand better. They demand reform and demand that these issues be taken more seriously and be given more credence.

I want to make a final comment in the last point I will make today, which is on indigenous procurement. I understand that there have been numerous discussions related to who is indigenous and who is not indigenous. This is a serious issue that has touched the hearts and minds of Canadians and those across North America. It is in the media, in academia and in this place. There has never been a time more important than today to work with indigenous people, to understand indigenous people and put indigenous people in the leadership role in developing a framework that would see indigenous identity truly respected and taken care of. I call on the government to immediately audit the existing list of businesses, strike down any that are ineligible and create a framework with indigenous people that gets to the bottom of this and ends Britannianism in procurement across Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, there is so much more that can be done. As a government, we are working to do as much as we can.

I have been a parliamentarian for well over 30 years now. I look at what we have been able to accomplish over the last nine years in terms of finances, legislative processes and building relationships, tangible relationships, nation to nation. I would be very much challenged to come up with another federal government that has done as much. I recognize that, yes, a lot more needs to be done, but I do believe, whether in the area of reconciliation, finances or legislation, that we have made significant gains.

My question to the member is not about that, but it is about the opposition members. This will be the third concurrence report in a row where they have instructed committees to call witnesses. I am concerned about the parliamentary procedure of using committee reports to get concurrence on the floor of the House as a tool to take away discussions that could be and should be possibly taking place in standing committees. What are his thoughts on that?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, this would have been an important study nine years ago. It would have been an important study 20 years ago. This would have been important when the country was founded. It has taken until today. Now the Conservatives are smelling blood in the water and want to take a partisan approach to this issue. That is the only reason we are debating this now.

I hear the member when he talks about the procedures of this place, but I respectfully submit that we should have been debating this a long time ago. When indigenous people began to be a part of our economy, which was always, we should have been asking the question of how they best fit in.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have been talking a lot about how infrastructure affects indigenous people and about the lack of infrastructure. We have talked about housing. We could talk about water and the economic impact on communities.

Not only is the government not providing the right infrastructure, but there are also negative effects from resource extraction, for example. I am thinking of a study carried out by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which showed the extremely negative impacts that resource extraction sites have in western Canada. They have consequences for nearby indigenous communities. This is an example of a bad project that does not put economic power back in the hands of indigenous people. What is more, it harms them, particularly indigenous women and girls.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about these negative effects.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that indigenous people have been disproportionately impacted by resource development throughout Canada's history. I am not talking only about oil and gas. I am talking about the fur trade industry, for example, that began Canada's exploitation in the area I am from. I am talking about the nuclear exploitation that took place in Ontario of indigenous people. I am talking about all kinds of exploitation that Indigenous people often suffer by way of this economic demand by Canadians.

It is true that indigenous women in particular are facing disproportionate levels of violence at resource extraction zones. The member was on the committee responsible for the study I am mentioning. There was testimony in there regarding an indigenous woman who had to resign from being chief because of the amount of terrible things that were being told to her and around her, and the issues that were pertaining to indigenous women and their ability to survive in that resource sector area.

Sexualized violence, racism and hatred, and systemic racism are perpetuated in these systems. We need to find ways to better support our workers in these places so they are better equipped to deal with the challenges of living in a northern isolated community, in addition to assisting those workers in finding pathways to becoming a benefit in those communities, as opposed to what is right now a very serious, risky and dangerous scenario.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my thanks to the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach for an extremely helpful view of the procurement processes and the need to go through those to remove the exploitation once again of indigenous peoples through fakery.

I want to put a question forward really clearly. Reconciliation has to be more than land and territorial acknowledgement. This is the land we are standing on today that was stolen. When will we get to land back? When can we get to a real discussion of indigenous territorial sovereignty over lands that were stolen?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that great question. This is something I think we would agree on. The fundamental issue is the land. Indigenous people have a fundamental right to this land. This comes from the very important reality that these people, indigenous people, are part of the land.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that took place in the early 1990s delineated three things that constitute a nation: land, power and money. If there has ever been a moment in time in which indigenous people deserve to have their lands fully recognized as theirs, it was yesterday. The next best opportunity is today.

Let us acknowledge indigenous peoples beyond just our territorial acknowledgements of having traditional territory in this place. They have real territory in this place. These are their lands. We have to respect that and come to terms with that; by God, I hope we can find a way to have reconciliation and forgiveness. With the pathway of ensuring indigenous people have ownership and access to their own lands, in addition to Canadians' ability to reconcile, if that happens in earnest, I think we actually have a chance to live harmoniously in this great place we call home.

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

Madam Speaker, I thought my colleague gave an extremely powerful speech. When I see the Conservative members come into the House and say they believe in indigenous reconciliation, I feel as though a crocodile is inviting me down to sit by the river's edge and have a picnic with them. They say, “Trust me, we will get along famously.” We have seen the long history of the Conservatives; we have also seen the complete failure of the Liberals, year in, year out, all the way back to Confederation.

In our region, Treaty No. 9 signed over to the state what were pretty much the richest gold, iron, copper, hydro and forestry lands in the world; it built Canada. Our communities were left on these postage stamp-sized reserves. We still have it happening with the Ring of Fire; Doug Ford said he was going to drive a bulldozer into the Ring of Fire himself. Meanwhile, he is ignoring Neskantaga First Nation's 28 years without water; he will not even talk to Neskantaga. He will not even talk to Eabametoong First Nation, yet he says he is going to get at the wealth of Treaty No. 9's territory for an Australian mining giant.

What does my hon. colleague think of the Conservative promises?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would say this to Canadians who are following this debate: The only time the Conservatives will mention indigenous people is if it is to score partisan points. That is always the case, and it has always been the truth across Canada.

It is that truth or the second truth, which is that indigenous people have something the Conservatives want. That is the case in point that the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay just raised. I want to mention that he is a stalwart of indigenous rights. He has long been committed to indigenous people and our participation, not just in this place but right across the country.

I am willing to set aside what I have seen as a pattern from both parties to get a commitment from them to truly see that the solution toward indigenous justice lies not within their parties, but in the minds, imaginations and spirits of indigenous peoples. Their right to self-determination will never die.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his amazing speech. In all of these conversations, I am consistently brought back to some of the work that I do on national defence and the links to the Arctic, conversations about resource extraction there and what is going on.

Could the member relate what he was talking about earlier to the Arctic and what we are seeing for indigenous people there?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from London—Fanshawe for her fantastic work and her deep commitment to reconciliation on behalf of indigenous people, particularly when it comes to those who are serving in our armed forces.

Indigenous people have deeply committed to the defence of this country through the Canadian Armed Forces. We can remember them and their deep contributions in World War II or World War I, but they also contribute today, insisting that the very important work of protecting the Arctic should be indigenous led. Inuit have long protected the northern part of the Arctic. We must continue in that great tradition and support them as they continue to do that work on behalf of themselves and Canadians.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak tonight on this concurrence debate. I will be sharing my time with my neighbour in the riding and here in the House, the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.

This seems like everything old is new again with this debate and looking at this particular issue. We looked at this issue over six years ago in the operations committee. I know I have rarely mentioned my work in the operations committee over the nine years I have been on it here in the House.

In 2018, the OGGO committee, the mighty OGGO, put out report number 15 on indigenous procurement and the government's role and how we can help with indigenous businesses. I really encourage everyone, especially the government, to read the report. The government did a response to the report, as it is required to, which, of course, was full of nothings.

A couple of years later, in probably 2020 or 2021, I asked the government to table an analysis line by line of the recommendations, to see how many had been achieved. On the 35 recommendations, the government came back with 35 examples of basic word salad, which means it basically has not done anything.

I have to ask again why we are studying this issue. My colleague from Edmonton Griesbach gave us a shot at the end, and I am perfectly fine with that. We did work together on public accounts, and I know he is passionate about this and we share a lot of similar values. The government should be following its rules and there should be accountability for government for its actions. We continue to see nothing on this issue.

From the report, I am going to go over some of the titles. My colleague from Edmonton Griesbach asked why we have not done anything in the past 20 years. I have to say that we have a blueprint on how to succeed in this issue, and the government sat on it for six and a half years. Here are some of the headings from the report, just so the government can understand some of the things we are talking about. It talks about governance and interpretation of the indigenous strategy, promoting the indigenous strategy and preventing corporate fronts. Of course, we talked about that a lot in the question period today. Perhaps the member for Edmonton Centre would like to weigh in on this issue, or perhaps read the report himself.

There are other sections on supporting small and medium-sized indigenous women-owned indigenous businesses, and set-asides and the establishment of targets and goals, which makes me kind of confused. Why does the government need goals and targets? We have set rules on indigenous set-asides, on business that has to be set aside for indigenous-owned companies. Why we call it a goal when it is firm in writing is beyond me.

Another section is on partnerships and joint ventures, which again is a topic often discussed today, and on the front page of the National Post, about basically fake indigenous companies being set up, or shell companies. Another is lessons from the oil and gas sector. My colleague from Edmonton Griesbach weighed in on that as well, and I am going to respectfully disagree. We heard indigenous business communities all say that across the country, the energy sector in Alberta is promoting and using indigenous businesses the most. The ones doing the worst job were PSPC and INAC.

There was a section on the evaluation of the indigenous strategy and data. This is funny because the government at the time, when asked how it was recording which indigenous companies were getting business and recording successes, commented that it was being tracked by Excel spreadsheet and that it did not have proper numbers. A couple years later we asked the same question and were told it was being tracked on an Excel spreadsheet. Thank God it was not using Lotus 1-2-3, because I am sure the government would, if it could get away with that.

Another section of the report was on large-scale procurement projects, and my favourite one, parliamentary precinct. I want to read part of the report on parliamentary precinct, which reads, “[The government] informed the committee that in fall 2017, PSPC posted a tendering process for project managers for a portion of the rehabilitation of the parliamentary precinct for only three weeks.” For all three of those watching at home, I am referring to the rebuilding of Centre Block, which is about a $10-billion project.

The government put out an RFP that was only valid for about three weeks. The report continues, “Moreover, he highlighted that one of the requirements in that tendering process was that eligible companies had to acquire their resources from within a 50-kilometre radius of Ottawa.” That excluded Métis and indigenous businesses that were just outside of that 50-kilometre limit.

The Liberals, who spend so much time patting themselves on their backs and are almost throwing their arms out from patting themselves on the back so hard, rise repeatedly in the House to say that there is no relationship more important than theirs with the first nations. However, for the symbol of our democracy, Centre Block, the very building that defines freedom and democracy in Canada, they purposely excluded Métis and other indigenous businesses from being able to bid or even being subcontractors on this project. It is mind-boggling and shameful.

We also spoke in committee about the use of aboriginal criteria and that the government should be having their suppliers track subcontractors so we can see if there are community benefits for first nations. Just in the last couple of weeks, we have been studying indigenous procurement, again, at the operations committee. We were told that we are not tracking subcontractors. Why are we not doing this simple process to see if the community benefits are flowing through? The government seems more interested in finding a company that is 51% indigenous-owned, which may be fraudulent or deliver no benefits to the communities, to tick a box, rather than doing the real work.

We heard of this in the ArriveCan scandal, where we had Dalian with its partner, Coradix, which received hundreds of millions in government contracts. Coradix would create a venture with Dalian, which had self-identified as indigenous, receive hundreds of millions in contracts, and then not employ indigenous businesses. The government has known about this, which we know from the study, and it has done nothing.

From the OGGO report from 2017, we learned:

...the [Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business] suggested that the federal government award points to bidders that are Progressive Aboriginal Relations...certified, which consists of an independent jury of Indigenous professionals that “evaluates companies on their relationships with [indigenous] businesses and communities in day to day operations.”

This is another ongoing issue we have heard of. We have had first nations groups come to committee and say that they should be the ones who are deciding who is indigenous, so we do not have that fraud. It should be indigenous-led to dictate who are indigenous companies, not led by PSPC, yet what do we have? We have PSPC defining it based on self-identification, so we have rampant fraud worth perhaps hundreds of millions. We are not sure.

Part of the committee's study was on preventing corporate fronts. PSPC “explained that Indigenous status is not required for Indigenous businesses to be recognized as such since that recognition is based on self-identification.” One has to shake their head and ask why we have clearly identified rules to benefit indigenous companies and at the same time the government states that it is okay as long as people self-identify.

Now, of course, we have the ongoing issue of the other Randy. I am not sure, in the current issue, whether he is the other Randy, the other other Randy, or Randy's other Randy, but we have the Minister of Employment's company, of which he is 50% co-owner, bidding as an indigenous business.

The government said to committee that one is not required to be indigenous to bid. They just have to state that they are indigenous. This is the crux of the issue. We have a government that is more interested in photo ops and virtue signalling than in following the rules and getting the work done. I wish I had more time to discuss this issue because it has been building up for six and a half years, but I will just say that the government should be active on this issue now.

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

Madam Speaker, I am thinking in terms of a Conservative commitment to cut the Canada Infrastructure Bank, even though the Canada Infrastructure Bank has not only many projects that are complete but also others that are on the way. It has a wonderful program called the indigenous equity initiative, which works in partnership with indigenous people in many different ways.

I am wondering whether the member can explain how the Conservatives have made the determination that they are going to cut the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and whether he could give a clear indication whether or not they would at the very least, after they have cut the Infrastructure Bank, put in some form of an indigenous equity initiative to replace it.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would just ask my colleague across the way this: Will he stand with us and demand that the member for Edmonton Centre, the minister for employment, be fired from his job as minister? He committed fraud. His company put down that it was indigenous-owned when it was clearly not. The government paraded the member for Edmonton Centre for years through their indigenous caucus when he was not indigenous.

I am sure the member will have another chance to ask a question. Will he simply stand and say that yes, he supports the firing of the Minister of Employment?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his great work at OGGO, getting to the bottom of much of the serious procurement issue before us. One of the issues we worked together on in the public accounts committee was the issue of subcontracting. At the time, when we were investigating Dalian, a company that claimed to be indigenous for the purposes of getting government contracts, we had learned throughout the process that even he did not know the rules around the indigenous procurement strategy. He never knew them.

How can a government fail so much that even the person applying to the program did not have any idea, according to him, that there were misleading applications? Is this just part and parcel of the program that one must admit to not understanding the program in order to apply? What would the member have to say about those two options with respect to Dalian and with respect to the other Randy?