Debates of Nov. 18th, 2024

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[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?

[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?