Debates of Nov. 18th, 2024

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach. We do miss him on public accounts, so I hope he will come back.

The issue is a serious one. I think the member brought up in his own speech, and some pointed toward us, and that is fair, that people were using the indigenous community for scoring points or for gaining traction. The government needs to move past this. We have to follow the rules. We have to include the community when setting out very clear guidelines on what is considered indigenous-owned and what the community benefits are that will maximize the benefit of indigenous communities.

We have to stop using photo ops and seeking attention, or patting ourselves on the back for all the great work we are doing when nothing is getting done. We need to involve all the members of the House and all the members on the committee to ensure that strong work, whether it is the OGGO report or public accounts work, is followed and that we focus on getting results and not just ticking a box somewhere in the bureaucracy.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I have a great amount of respect for the work he does. I have seen a lot of scandals over the years. This one, to me, is very tawdry. It has been like an endless line of scandals with the member for Edmonton Centre, but there is something really deplorable about someone who has the power of government and then presents themselves as indigenous in order to secure contracts from the government. This seems like the ultimate grift. It is also a slap in the face to anything that speaks of reconciliation in this country. It just cannot be allowed to stand.

I want to ask my colleague why he thinks the member for Edmonton Centre is still sitting on the front bench.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the witnesses who appeared at OGGO made a comment about the situation. He stated, “You're harming the community by taking that opportunity away. Whether it's food out of their mouths and social impact on the community or a job.” This is very much at the crux of it. The actions of the Minister of Employment are attacking and taking away opportunities from those people who are deserving in the indigenous community.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to give a round of applause to my colleague, the member for Edmonton West Edmonton Mall, as he often says, for an excellent speech.

I am thankful to participate in this debate because this is what Parliament is all about. It is about debating these very important issues. I am very proud to come here, not only as a representative of Sturgeon River—Parkland but also as a representative of a number of indigenous communities, including the Enoch Cree Nation and the Alexander First Nation, as well as the area that was traditionally occupied by members of the Michel Band. Sadly and unfortunately, in the 1950s, the Michel Band was enfranchised under some suspicious circumstances; to this day, people are still fighting to get the recognition they deserve.

My region, which is in Treaty 6 territory, has been a region of significant settlement for indigenous and Métis peoples. I am very proud not only to be a representative of Sturgeon River—Parkland but also to represent these peoples.

I am rising to speak today on the issue of indigenous procurement programs. For those of my constituents who are watching, I want to provide a bit of background on what we are talking about today. We know that, over the time period of Canada being a country, and even before, indigenous peoples were disadvantaged in many ways by policies that were carried out by the government, racism and a number of other things. I could talk about those things at length, but I am going to focus on indigenous procurement.

We know that these issues have really disenfranchised first nations, indigenous and Métis people, as well as others, from participating in the economy. The ability to participate in the economy is the ability to free oneself to really take charge of one's own life financially. When programs are set up, such as an indigenous procurement program, it is a recognition by government that marginalization has taken place. This needs to be addressed by a special program, with the hope that marginalized communities and entrepreneurs from these communities will have the opportunity to bid on government contracts. They will then be able to build their capacities to provide the services that the government is contracting for, and this will provide economic opportunity for people in their nations across Canada.

What has happened is a symptom of a government that has let its hand get off the wheel of governing and has really taken a laid-back approach to accountability and transparency. What should be a good program to increase capacity and support indigenous peoples with developing their economic capacity has been taken advantage of by unscrupulous actors who are exploiting a weakness in government. They are exploiting a lack of accountability and transparency to access these programs.

We are talking about potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in funds that have been misappropriated. We know that there is this recent phenomenon of pretendians. I am sure it has been a long-lasting phenomenon. Here, people who have no indigenous heritage and no status with any indigenous community claim indigenous heritage through the government's indigenous procurement program. They are trying to give themselves a leg up when seeking out government contracts. We have seen this pretendianism manifest itself in many ways, but this is a very specific example of how it can be financially beneficial.

The member for Timmins—James Bay asked if this was the ultimate grift. This is an example of grift, where we see people taking advantage of a program that is meant to empower marginalized people, and the people who are doing this are very empowered in the first place.

A case in point example is when we are talking about the Minister of Employment and his business partner, Stephen Anderson. I do not think anyone in the House would argue that these are marginalized people. These are people who are at the pinnacle of political and economic power in this country. The Minister of Employment was a Rhodes Scholar. He is a very privileged person, yet he and his business partner are checking the box, claiming their indigenous heritage, in order to benefit from a government program. This program is meant to build capacity and support people in marginalized indigenous communities so that they can empower themselves, build their businesses and be successful.

I pray that some day in the future, hopefully sooner rather than later, we will live in a country where there is no need for programs like this because indigenous people will be on an equal footing with all other people in terms of their success and their capacity to build their own businesses and to succeed in the marketplace. I know there are many great indigenous companies that are already succeeding. There are indigenous companies in my riding that are participating, particularly in the oil and gas sector in my province, and are succeeding massively.

There was a recent agreement made under the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, which was set up under a Conservative government in Alberta, where we saw indigenous communities such as Enoch Cree Nation in my constituency partner on a new power plant project, the Cascade power plant just outside of Edson, Alberta. This power plant was built on time, on schedule and on budget and is now providing power for the people of Alberta, including many of these first nations communities, and first nations have a tangible ownership stake in this company. That is to show just how successful indigenous people can be when these programs are built correctly and yet, under the current Liberal government, we have seen transparency and accountability really go by the wayside.

There have been research findings revealed by Global News and first nations universities that have uncovered fraudulent schemes where consultants are paying indigenous people to front companies so that they can apply for this program. We are seeing shell company operators who have been abusing loopholes for years while Indigenous Services Canada is just standing by. We had witnesses who came to the government operations committee who said very clearly that this is harming indigenous peoples because it is not only taking away financial economic opportunities that indigenous people should be given priority to access, but it is also undermining the very programs themselves. When people see that this fraudulent activity is taking place, it undermines the public support for these very important programs. Therefore, we need to ensure that these programs are targeted. We need to ensure that officials are doing the background checks necessary so that the people these programs have been designed to help are being helped. That is when we will see Canadians continue to firmly support these programs.

Talking again about the Minister of Employment, a colleague of mine during question period today made a very interesting point, which is that when the first indigenous justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, stood up to government corruption, she was removed from cabinet and yet, we have another Liberal minister who pretended to be indigenous to try to get government contracts when he was in the private sector and he is still standing on the front bench. It speaks volumes that we have a Prime Minister who allows this to happen under his leadership. Leadership comes from the top down, and when people in the Liberal Party see what their Prime Minister is getting away with, I guess they just take it as an example of what they think that they will be allowed to get away with themselves.

I just want to say that I am incredibly proud to represent so many wonderful indigenous, first nations and Métis peoples in my region. I have been speaking to leaders in the community and they are absolutely furious that these programs have been exploited by bad actors in order to enrich themselves while indigenous business owners who are very deserving have been left out, either from a lack of information or a lack of funding. These funds are going to companies that do not have the right to access these funds. It is really a slap in the face to reconciliation for the government not to take action immediately to solve these issues.

I would like to move a subamendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended, in paragraph (c), by adding the following: “(iii) given priority to this study, subject only to its order of referencing Bill C-61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands; and (iv) have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings, subject to any special orders previously adopted, for the studies referred to in subparagraph (iii)”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The subamendment is in order.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure members have heard the phrase “fake news”. What we have witnessed is fake concern from the Conservative Party on such an important issue for Canadians. Let me explain why in the form of putting forward a question for the member.

The member knows that the Conservative Party has had numerous days of opposition. We might be surprised, or maybe not, that it has never, ever used the issue as an opposition day motion. If I am wrong, I would like the member to tell me the day it actually did, or to say that, yes, it came close and maybe even gave some thought to talking about the issue when it has thought about opposition days.

Can the member give any sort of sign of hope that the Conservative Party of Canada genuinely cares about indigenous issues, outside of using what it has today, which is nothing but a political manoeuvre as part of the multi-million dollar filibuster? That is what we are witnessing, because I have never seen an opposition day on the issue. Am I wrong? Was there an opposition day from the Conservative Party on the issue of indigenous people?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to push back against the member's assertion. I think members can check the record. I have raised issues numerous times on behalf of my constituents, including my indigenous constituents, related to the Enoch Cree Nation. It has made multiple attempts to access rural broadband funding, housing funding and waste-water funding from the federal government, only to be rejected every single time.

In fact, the chief and council of the Enoch Cree Nation reached out in relation to a funding program that was set up by the government to clean up abandoned orphaned wells. There are a number of orphaned wells on the Enoch Cree Nation's lands. There was money left over in the fund. The nation begged the Liberal government to set aside the funds so first nations could go out, do the work and clean up the abandoned wells.

What did the government do instead? It clawed back the funding, not only hurting our environment and leaving first nations communities with a bigger cleanup bill and environmental disasters on their lands but also preventing indigenous businesses from succeeding—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of being in the House from 2008 to 2015, when the Conservative government, under Prime Minister Harper, was here. In that time period, there were dozens of indigenous nations across this country that did not have access to clean drinking water, one of the primary elements of life. The government of the time sat and did nothing about that, so I do not think we should take any lessons from the Conservatives about care and concern for indigenous communities in this country.

The member talked about economic development. To me, the basis of economic development for anybody is to be anchored in their community with a home; it is an essential need in order to be able to participate as a member of society. However, the Conservative leader has told his MPs to stop advocating for funds for municipalities that want to obtain funds through the $4-billion housing accelerator fund. This was admitted by Conservatives. Can he tell us whether he supports his leader's telling Conservative MPs not to obtain funds for housing for their constituents?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to admit that I am somewhat confused because I am never sure which New Democratic Party I am going to see in the House today. When my colleague from Edmonton West was speaking, there were members of the NDP standing up and holding the government to account. When I get up to speak, there are members of the NDP looking like they want to join the Liberal Party and parroting its talking points.

It is so important that we focus on the debate here today. I find it kind of odd that the New Democrats claim to stand up for indigenous communities and indigenous small businesses. I know that the member from Edmonton Griesbach was very eloquent on this. Maybe he should be speaking with his colleagues and reminding them how important it is to stand up for them so they can access the programs and ask questions that are relevant to the subject matter we are speaking about today.

The fact is that indigenous-owned businesses have been under-represented in our country and that the funding programs that were designed to increase their capacity and economic empowerment have been taken advantage of by bad actors who are using shell companies and consultants to exploit indigenous peoples to access funds and enrich themselves. It is absolutely wrong and shameful that a member of the NDP is not championing the issue each and every day in the House.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I start my comments today, I have an opportunity, because I am standing up, to recognize Sabrina Larson, who has worked in my constituency office for 16 years. She is here in Ottawa today to get a long service award. I cannot tell whether she is in the House but I am very thankful for the work she has done for many, many years, helping my constituents handle their casework. I serve what is no doubt the largest constituency by population in the country, with a lot of casework. We think there are between 260,000 and 280,000 people right now in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. I am looking forward to the boundary changes in the next election. I should mention that Sabrina's husband, Laine, is here in Ottawa. I am very thankful for him as well.

The new constituency, when the boundaries take effect at the election, will be switched from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin to Leduc—Wetaskiwin. In that new constituency, the community of Maskwacis will be added to my constituency. I am very much looking forward to the riding boundaries being moved in that way. It is very important for Maskwacis to be included in the region we are in.

Of course, the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach and I may not agree on very many things, but as he spoke today, I was listening intently. I appreciated his comments, and I appreciated, especially, his shout-out to Willie Littlechild, who was the member of Parliament for that area, I believe, from 1984 to 1993, or in that time frame anyway.

We also have a connection in that he is very involved with the Edmonton Oilers Community Foundation. I worked for the Edmonton Oilers before I was elected. I am very thankful to Willie for his contributions to the broader community and specifically to the community of Maskwacis.

This debate is really important. As I was listening to the debate today, I was struck by Liberal members, including the Liberal member for Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, and, earlier, the member for Saint John—Rothesay, standing up and completely discounting the importance of this conversation, completely demeaning the fact that we would even have this conversation today, talking about how unimportant it is.

Of course, the member for Winnipeg North called it “fake news”. Just a few minutes ago, as we were talking, he referred to the whole debate we are having today as “fake news”. Interestingly, Conservatives have brought up this issue at various committees in the House. We are having this debate today because of a concurrence motion brought forward by Conservatives.

The member will have the opportunity to vote on this concurrence motion and the amendments in the coming days. We will look forward to seeing how the member for Winnipeg North votes.

I want to focus on the member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre and the broader issue here. Of course, he is the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages—

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the Conservatives are trying to have a high level of debate today, so I just wanted to correct the record. It was not “fake news”. The member was saying it is fake concern from the Conservatives.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, actually, the quote-unquote comment was “fake news” from the hon. member, so that point of order seems to be fake news in and of itself.

I serve in an Edmonton riding. I have served for 19 years in the House. I have had the opportunity to—

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I appreciate the high level of debate, but I was not sure if the Speaker ruled that it was a fake point of order or not a point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It was not a point of order. It was a point of debate.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the member for Timmins—James Bay and his dedication to a high level of debate in the House.

I will come back to the member for Edmonton Centre, an on-again, off-again member of the House. Of course, he was a member for four years and then was put on a time out and then came back for the last few years, taking a cabinet position as one of two Alberta members of Parliament.

I will point out that even before the series of scandals the minister has found himself in, he did absolutely nothing for the people of Alberta or the people of Edmonton in his role as the minister responsible for Edmonton. In fact, on multiple occasions, I had the chance to be on panels with him, up until—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Can we have some order, please? A speech is being given.

The hon. member has the floor.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker—

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would sincerely like to apologize, but I do think the conversation was that he had done some stuff by getting the procurements. I think it was unfair, but I do retract—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We are getting into debate and mocking the procedures of the House, and I really do not appreciate that.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has the floor.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is one of the first comments I think I have ever heard the hon. member make that I might agree with. We agree that it seems as though the minister in question sees every government program as a personal opportunity. That is what we are talking about today. It sounds like the hon. member was making the same point I am.

I was going back to the conversations I have had in year-end panels with the minister, where just the two of us, sometimes three when an NDP member from Edmonton was there, talked about the situation with the federal government and the impact on Edmontonians or Albertans. The minister constantly repeated government talking points as they relate to, for example, the energy sector in Alberta. As mentioned earlier today, there are few industries more committed to indigenous involvement and meaningful indigenous contribution and benefit than the energy sector in Canada, yet the minister constantly stands in opposition in the House to the energy sector in Alberta.

I had the opportunity to do four constituent round tables last week, and it is unfortunate that with the scandals facing the minister today, he is not able to take part in meaningful conversations at cabinet. I believe there is a cabinet meeting tomorrow. I suspect this cabinet meeting will be more consumed with the side hustles of the minister than talking about employment, the workforce or official languages.

What my constituents are concerned about is our broken systems across the board. The government seems consumed with experimental policy on housing, immigration, public safety, energy and the environment. All of these issues were things that constituents were consumed with at the four constituent round table meetings I had over the past week. They are very concerned that their Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, is not just lost in the conversations but completely incompetent when it comes to dealing with the very real issues that Canadians are facing today.

With the indigenous procurement strategy, the outcome was supposed to be a stimulating of economic activity that benefits indigenous people, with a 5% set-aside for indigenous businesses. Of federal contracts, 5% were supposed to go to indigenous businesses, but before this even came up, a concern was raised, which has been raised over the last little while. There are three different areas of abuse that we can point to: instances where non-indigenous companies claimed to be indigenous and came to be regarded as indigenous by the federal government; instances where the joint ventures between indigenous and non-indigenous companies, which meant the joint ventures could access set-asides, led to the work and benefits bring monopolized by non-indigenous partners; and instances where small, nominally indigenous companies received contracts and then subcontracted them to non-indigenous companies. The first of these instances is what we are dealing with right now.

Even before this conflict, many of us, many of my constituents and, I would say, most people in Alberta believed that it was time for the minister to resign. The context to the conversation we are having today is that there was an underlying conversation about indigenous procurement and, as we have talked about, this concept of “pretendians”, as they have come to be known.

We were already having this conversation, and then it came to light over the last week that the minister himself and the organization, the company that he is a part of and has been a part of, is engaged in this same activity. I believe the lobbyist that he is tied to has received $110 million in government funds, which are taxpayer funds. Let us be clear on this. We are not talking about government money. The government has no money. Individual Canadians have money taken from their paycheques, money that would otherwise be used for things such as food, housing and maybe the odd vacation, if they can afford it. Instead, this lobbyist received $110 million. Then, while the minister was a partner in the company, it received a further $8 million in government contracts. In fact, he was a director in the company. There was already a conversation happening about that, and then this new situation came to light.

I will point out a couple of things that are really important in terms of the conversation. In question period today, we will notice something about the responses from the government on this particular question. No one denied that, before he was a minister or a member of Parliament, the minister pretended to be indigenous and that his company applied for federal funding. Even in the answers in question period today, nobody denied that this is the case. The government House leader, I believe, did an interview after question period today, and this is what she said. We should listen carefully to the wording. She said, “We addressed the fact that that business was never listed as an Indigenous business on the procurement site, and it in fact received no funding from the Government of Canada.”

I would hope the Prime Minister is holding his cabinet ministers to a higher standard than that. The assertion is that, before he was a minister, the minister pretended to be indigenous and his company applied for funding meant for indigenous procurement. The fact that the government did not give it that funding does not change anything about the minister's conduct and the question of whether the minister meets the standard that Canadians would expect.

I do not think there is any doubt that most Canadians would say that the minister needs to resign and that, if he does not resign, he absolutely needs to be fired by the Prime Minister. I would bet that, if we polled Canadians on that question and let them know exactly what the circumstances are, it would be 99% in favour of the Prime Minister firing the minister. I would be surprised if it were not. That is how serious this circumstance is that we are discussing today.

I am curious about the questions I will be asked. The Speaker is signalling to me that there is no time for questions. I will miss the member for Winnipeg North asking me a question today.

I will comment further on this. I want to point out something interesting: It seems that even the minister's cabinet colleagues have questions. It was interesting again today, in the early part of question period, that in question after question, no other minister was willing to stand up and defend the minister. It is very rare to see the minister have to stand up. He did not actually respond to or answer the questions. After question period, when a reporter asked the procurement minister clearly about the situation, he said, “It's for [him] to continue explaining the circumstances.” He named the Minister of Employment, not the other Randy.

Even Liberal ministers do not want to carry the water for the Liberal minister. In the larger picture, his time is up. His time is almost certainly up as a minister. Even as incompetent a government as this government is, there is no way it can possibly continue having the minister serve in the capacity that he is serving in. His time as a member of Parliament will be up too, because there is no way that even the staunchest supporters in Edmonton Centre will support him. They were not going to vote for the Liberal government anyway, but they certainly are not going to vote for this member of Parliament when the time comes.

I will conclude by saying that we look forward to the debate this week. We hope that ministers in the government and maybe the Prime Minister, if he is able to make it out this week, have some responses to this. We also look forward to seeing how every member of the House votes on this motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is the House ready for the question?