Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That's different, though. That is when it is a Conservative.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

As my colleague points out, we cannot mix Conservatives and Liberals. There are totally different standards.

At the end of the day, I think we should be asking the committee to have the member for Calgary Nose Hill come before the same committee, maybe following Patrick Brown, so that we can hear from Patrick Brown how foreign interference was directly involved in the leadership of the Conservative Party, the very same leadership convention in which the current leader was elected. The current leader refuses to get that security clearance. Why? It is because he wants to be naive on the issue.

It would be really good to see the two of them sitting there and being held accountable on foreign interference. I suspect that we are not going to get a motion to that effect coming from the Conservative Party, because, after all, transparency only matters when it is Conservatives attacking and using character assassination against Liberals. That is all that matters from the Conservative point of view. There is a responsibility of accountability for the Conservatives too. I will continue to push for that accountability.

On a final note, I encourage the leader of the Conservative Party to do the right thing and get the security clearance.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North gets in here, all sanctimonious, with all sorts of machinations of what is happening over on the Conservative side, and he is making it up as he goes along. He says that we are bringing forward a filibuster. We are on a different motion from what he was debating this whole time. We are talking about a concurrence report from the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

Instead, he goes off on tirades, accusing the member for Calgary Nose Hill of being interfered with, when her own statements to the CBC and the statement she released on social media say that she was not. For him to stand in this place and disparage the comments made by the member for Calgary Nose Hill does a disservice to all hon. members in the House.

He wants to talk about filibustering, yet nobody has spoken more than him in the House since forever in the history of Canada, and definitely at this point in time when we are talking about the issues of both this concurrence motion and the question of privilege as it relates to the green slush fund. Let me just ask the member this. Is he going to continue to slow down the business of the House, or is he going to continue to—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing that the Conservatives are complaining because I am trying to hold them to account for the types of things that they do on the floor of the House of Commons. He talks about the poor member for Calgary Nose Hill. She says that she is innocent. Think about it. Before we pose the question, give it some thought. What are they doing with the member for Edmonton Centre? Where does this double standard come from, seriously?

At the end of the day, they need to understand that it is not only government. There are also opposition responsibilities. I do not see a responsible—

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

Other opposition members would like to ask questions.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

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

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy listening to the member for Winnipeg North in the House because I find that he always manages to present new arguments on subjects that are not always easy to understand. This time, however, I believe that he is off topic, and I find that disappointing.

In my view, the primary issue is the theft of first nations identity, the fact that people can claim indigenous identity as they see fit in order to access contracts or to give false social licence on behalf of indigenous communities, when indigenous people themselves do not recognize it. That is why the Bloc Québécois supported the motion. I am wondering whether the member for Winnipeg North and his government are embarrassed by this obvious negligence.

The solution is simple. What is needed is a registry created by and for first nations people, so that they themselves can decide who should be recognized as members of their communities. Would the member for Winnipeg North support that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize in the sense that, if I only had more time, I would have gotten to a number of things that I had listed. For example, as of November 18, 2024, there have been 2,945 businesses listed on the IBD. Of the 2,945, 111 of them are indigenous businesses that are joint ventures, which is greater than the 3%. In 2022, during the first fiscal year of a 5% target, ISC did a comprehensive review of businesses listed on the IBD, including verifying eligibility and 51% ownership. There were 1,100 listings removed as a result of this review.

For me personally, it amplifies the fact that we need to do more diligence on the issue. There is no doubt about that. I was interested in the member's comment regarding a registry. I would like to think there is an obligation on all of us to look at ways to make sure there is more credibility and strength within to ensure procurements are being done in a proper fashion that all of us agree to.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I am pleased because we do not get to hear from him very often.

The NDP suggested a GST holiday on basic necessities. Unfortunately, the Liberals' measure will last for only two months. We would have wanted it to be permanent. They also presented another measure: a $250 cheque for workers, which could be a good thing, but seniors and retirees are excluded because they do not have any employment income.

I hope my colleague will work hard to resolve this problem and help the people and seniors who really need it.

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

I want to remind the hon. member that that has very little to do with the subject of the motion and the hon. member's speech.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, working with the NDP has allowed the government, in many ways, to establish common policy initiatives that are helping Canadians and helping to get things done. The GST holiday on a number of different products during the holiday season is an excellent example of how we are able to get something tangible delivered. It is going to allow Canadians to be given a bit of a break during the holiday season. I see that as a very strong, powerful thing.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman said moments ago that the member for Calgary Nose Hill said that it did not happen. We have to read what she actually said in that story. She said she was not coerced and she left the campaign of Patrick Brown of her own volition, but that is not what we are talking about. We are not talking about why she chose to leave. We are talking about whether there was foreign interference.

The question is not why she resigned from the campaign. The question is whether a foreign diplomat specifically approached her. What does the parliamentary secretary have to contribute in terms of what he thinks that means?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is the reason the member for Calgary Nose Hill should go before the committee. The member is exactly right. It is whether someone was approached by a foreign diplomat or agent of another government in any fashion who made suggestions, which she seemed to have conveyed to more than one person who was prepared to potentially come forward. That is foreign interference. She should go before the committee.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, with respect to the concurrence report that we are debating today, will the member for Winnipeg North please apologize to all Canadians of indigenous ancestry for the horrible actions of the former cabinet minister, the member for Edmonton Centre?

Second, will the member apologize to all the women he has silenced in the House of Commons by taking up all the time in Government Orders, year after year? Women in the Liberal Party are not allowed to speak, thanks to him. Will he apologize for his egregious actions?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will not apologize for a government that has been more feminist than any other government in the history of Canada, where we have seen 50%, and at times more, women around the cabinet table. I have no problem, in terms of recognizing the degree to which this government looks at things through a gender lens in dealing with issues such as the budget. I have no problem, in terms of comparing and contrasting the Conservatives' attitudes toward women with the attitudes of this government. It is quite the contrast, and I know many women within the caucus are more than happy to take on the Conservatives on this particular issue.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear our colleague say that some companies have been removed from the list of eligible businesses. However, why did it take scandals like Global Health Imports and ArriveCAN for the government to act?

I am going to ask him this: If indigenous people had been able to determine for themselves which companies qualified as indigenous businesses, could these scandals, which are shameful for the government, have been avoided? To ask the question is—

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

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member refers to issues that come before the government, and at times the government ministers need to take specific actions. There is a learning curve, depending on different types of situations, and where that has been afforded, ministers have in fact taken action.

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

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 hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Housing; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

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

Madam Speaker, this will be an opportunity for me to talk about identity and, above all, cultural appropriation. I want to talk about identity as a collective commitment toward first nations in a context of reconciliation, evidently. I rise today to intervene on the 18th report, which was given to my colleagues by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, on the matter of first nations, Red River Métis and Inuit identity theft. The committee shared it with my colleagues because this work should have been made a priority a long time ago. I am pleased to talk about it and to talk about the essential questions that need to be asked.

Identity is not just an abstract concept. It is an anchor. It ties us to our past, guides us in our present and lights the way to our future. It is not a right we can claim lightly, however. It is a promise that we make to our community, to our people and to those who will come after us. It is certainly not a privilege, as the federal government thinks it is, and, as I said, it is a fundamental right of a nation. What happens when that promise is broken? What happens when that identity is exploited, stolen or misused for personal or political gain? What happens when those who should be stewarding that identity, in other words, governments and institutions, fail to protect something that is sacred to so many communities?

Today, I am asking my colleagues to reflect on what it means to protect an identity, not only our own, but also that of our people. More importantly, I am asking them to reflect on the real economic, cultural and political consequences of identity appropriation. We need to make this issue a priority. The work that the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs did was essential, urgent and necessary. This work is not only a political responsibility; it is a moral imperative. We are being called upon to answer a vital question that has been ignored for too long: How can we guarantee the integrity of identity recognition processes while respecting the legitimate rights of first nations, Métis and Inuit people?

Several ministers have already been asked to speak on this issue, as have some public servants whose decisions must now be examined in light of subsequent events. Experts will also be summoned to enlighten the committee regarding the loopholes that enabled such abuse to happen and suggest possible solutions. It is time to stop dancing around the issue. The misappropriation of indigenous identities is not just a simple administrative error or an isolated incident. It is an injustice that undermines our reconciliation efforts and the communities' trust in institutions. By failing to take immediate action, we have allowed unacceptable situations to proliferate. It is high time that we addressed this issue with courage and determination.

We cannot disregard the recent events that have shaken the public's trust in our institutions. The matter involving the former minister and member for Edmonton Centre is a perfect example of the dangers inherent to identity appropriation and its impact on relations between the government and indigenous peoples. Wrongfully claiming indigenous identity to obtain benefits or privileges, as alleged in this matter, is not only a serious breach of ethics, but a betrayal of the true members of these communities. This scandal highlights the urgent need to review our identity recognition procedures, ensure full transparency in government practices, and restore trust in our institutions.

We have a duty to the first nations, Métis and Inuit to correct these injustices, to listen to their concerns and to protect their rights and their identity. The mistakes of the past must not be repeated, and the government must show leadership by implementing clear and fair mechanisms that will prevent this kind of abuse from happening again. People need an identity that uplifts them, not one that divides them. Identity is more than just a word or an idea. It is a history, a legacy and a duty. However, this history does not exist in isolation. It is intertwined with the history of the other peoples and communities who share our land and our values.

Take a recent example involving the Algonquins and Métis of Ontario. In 2017, the Ontario government gave harvesting rights to groups claiming to be Métis, without consulting the Algonquins, whose land was directly affected. The Government of Ontario even created an entity called Algonquins of Ontario, or AOO. The Ontario government uses it to avoid the real conversations it should be having with the Anishinabe on their land, the same unceded land we are on right now. Let us think about this: Algonquins, who have had a relationship with this land for thousands of years, are suddenly excluded from discussions about their own rights. This decision caused severe tension and undermined the trust between the indigenous communities and the institutions involved.

In 2023, the Ontario Court of Appeal sided with the Algonquins, the real ones, allowing them to sue the government. However, that victory came after years of struggle, frustration and loss that could have been avoided had the Algonquins been consulted from the start. This case illustrates the broader reality. Identities cannot be defined in the absence of recognition from the communities involved. Identities must be uplifting, not divisive.

There is a philosophy of recognition. Who we are is not a personal choice. It is not something we can adopt or advocate for because it seems beneficial or rewarding. It is based on a fundamental principle, and that is recognition. An identity must be recognized by those who truly carry it, by those who share its history and responsibilities. The Red River Métis, the Inuit, like the Algonquins, the Anishinabe and other first nations, have complex social and cultural networks, shared histories and governance systems that define who is part of their communities. They know better than anyone else who belongs to their communities. They know their members, their families, their alliances. When a person or a group claims an identity without being recognized by those communities, that poses a serious problem. It is not just about authenticity. It is also a matter of respect.

Consider the member for Edmonton Centre, a former federal cabinet minister. For years, he presented himself as Métis, claiming to be a non-status adopted Cree. His claims have been proven to be unfounded. This undermined his credibility and shattered public trust in our institution. This conduct by a minister raises ethical and moral questions. This type of claim harms more than just the person making the claim. It is far from being a personal mistake. It harms actual indigenous communities, which are being robbed of opportunities and resources, robbed of their stories and their legitimacy. Basically, stealing an identity is also stealing a voice.

The real consequences of identity appropriation are not an abstract problem. They are real, measurable and often devastating for the communities involved. We are talking about the diversion of resources intended for indigenous communities. These include grants, programs and economic supports that, obviously, are limited. When individuals or groups falsely claim an identity, those resources are diverted.

Imagine a young Métis, Inuit or first nations artist whose project is rejected because some of the funding has been allocated to someone who does not actually belong to any of those communities. Imagine a family struggling to preserve its language or traditions but deprived of support because funds have been diverted to illegitimate projects.

That reinforces stereotypes. When an identity is misappropriated, it is often oversimplified. That feeds stereotypes that keep indigenous communities trapped in simplistic roles, such as the spiritual indigenous person, the marginalized indigenous person or, worse, the invisible indigenous person. Such stereotypes do not support these communities, far from it. They reinforce inequality and discrimination and can even lead to cultural erasure. One of the most insidious risks of identity appropriation is cultural homogenization. When everything ends up looking the same, the unique characteristics of each culture are erased. Every language that is forgotten, every ritual that is abandoned and every story that is not passed down is a loss for humanity as a whole.

Governments therefore have an implicit responsibility. All governments have a fundamental responsibility to protect the identities and rights of indigenous peoples. This responsibility cannot be taken lightly, because every decision a government makes or fails to make has profound impacts on social cohesion, justice and reconciliation. Governments must be vigilant, transparent and respectful to ensure that their decisions do not perpetuate past injustices. That requires clear, practical measures and systematic consultation. Every decision affecting indigenous rights or territories must be preceded by respectful, in-depth discussions with the nations affected. These consultations are not just an administrative exercise. They are an essential step for ensuring that the voices of first nations, Métis and Inuit people are at the heart of the decision-making process.

We need to establish clear criteria for recognition. Indigenous identities must be defined and recognized on the basis of solid historical evidence, authentic community ties and explicit validation by the nations concerned. Without such criteria, we risk diluting the integrity of indigenous identities and encouraging false claims.

Greater protection of resources is also required. Governments must ensure that funds and opportunities for indigenous communities are actually directed to their true beneficiaries. This includes preventing abuse that diverts resources away from their original purpose.

When governments fail to fulfill these responsibilities, they fuel tensions, weaken legitimate claims and undermine reconciliation efforts. To do otherwise would not only betray the communities involved, but also undermine the public's trust in our institutions.

It is imperative that governments rise to these challenges and act decisively to build a society where every identity is valued and respected.

This leads us to reflect on our own identity. In Quebec, we have a long history of fighting to preserve our language, our culture and our rights. However, this fight must be fought with respect and humility. We cannot defend our identity while ignoring or downplaying the identity of others. The true strength of an identity, whether national or cultural, lies in its ability to coexist with others, to enrich and be enriched by different but complementary histories.

The identity of the Quebec nation has never been frozen in time. It evolves with the times, it is enriched by discourse and reinvents itself in the face of modern-day challenges. Today, we live in a Quebec where cultural diversity, the claims of indigenous peoples and the struggle for social justice are redefining what it means to be a Quebecker.

The legacy of the Patriots, with their quest for freedom, equality and sovereignty, is still an inspiration. However, we need to go further. The contemporary question of Quebec's identity cannot be addressed without fully including the first nations and Inuit. Their history is intimately entwined with our own, and their contribution to our collective culture is immeasurable. We will never forget the Métis of the Red River colony and the first premier of Manitoba, Louis David Riel. Quebeckers supported him until his last breath and carried on the duty to keep alive the collective memory we share with the Métis of Red River.

In this increasingly globalized world, protecting our language, culture and history must include a sincere openness to others with whom we share this land. Today, being a Quebecker means accepting the duality of preserving what makes us different while valuing the diversity that enriches our society.

We have a duty to build an identity that not only honours our past, but also reflects our collective aspirations. This identity includes, recognizes and celebrates the richness of its many components. It can help us carry the legacy of Quebec as a nation forward into today's world.

Ministerial responsibilities require courageous political action. To get back to the main topic, ministers play an essential role as political leaders in protecting identities, but also in correcting the mistakes of the past. This role extends beyond words and good intentions. It requires tangible, courageous action aimed at restoring equity and justice.

Let us consider Bill C-53, for example. It is unacceptable as drafted and must be withdrawn. If we continue with this bill, we will be perpetuating injustice and further weakening the legitimate claims of indigenous communities. Rejecting this bill, as Métis and first nations people are calling for, is more than a symbolic gesture. It is an essential political act that will show that we will not tolerate identity misappropriation.

In addition, it is imperative to recognize that the 2023 agreement signed with the Métis Nation of Ontario, or MNO, was illegitimate. It was built on fragile and contested foundations and has already created considerable tension with first nations and genuine Métis communities. The federal government must send a clear message. Talks should be broken off immediately.

The Métis National Council was once a representative body but no longer exists as a functional organization. The Manitoba Métis withdrew from the council in 2021, and the Saskatchewan Métis followed their example in the spring of 2024. More recently, last Friday, the British Columbia Métis also left the council, and the situation in Alberta is already on the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations' desk. Clearly, the council has become dysfunctional and can no longer serve as a legitimate representative.

This farce has gone on long enough. The ministers need to show leadership by terminating these agreements and re-establishing transparent and respectful dialogue with the true representatives of the communities. Without a doubt, the Minister of Indigenous Services, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency have central roles to play in reconciliation efforts. However, they need to be aware that this responsibility does not rest solely on their shoulders. We have reminded them time and time again that some issues exceed the scope of their mandate and require the involvement of their cabinet colleagues.

Reconciliation is not a task that can be compartmentalized. It requires a cross-cutting approach that spans across all departments and sectors. The Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs must ensure that justice and respect guide relations between law enforcement and indigenous communities. The Minister of Transport must take into account the realities of indigenous territories and work to open them up. The Minister of Canadian Heritage must recognize and support indigenous cultural initiatives to preserve and promote their languages, arts and stories. As for the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, he has a duty to integrate indigenous perspectives into the policies for welcoming new immigrants, ensuring that newcomers understand and respect the history and rights of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. The list goes on. Each minister must actively contribute, in his or her own area, to this reconciliation.

Reconciliation is not just an election promise or a budget line. It is a collective effort that requires coherence, collaboration and unwavering political will. Everyone must play their part, for it is only by acting together that we can build a future based on mutual respect and justice. These decisions are not just about correcting policies. They are about taking responsibility, taking the kind of action that shows we are serious about protecting indigenous identities and peoples.

In conclusion, it is time to build a shared and respected identity for the promise of a bright future. Today, we asked concerning and crucial questions for all indigenous nations. We looked at the challenges of identity protection and the injustices that are far too often ignored. We reiterated the responsibilities that governments, ministers and all of our institutions have to the first nations, Métis and Inuit. What we have done is reaffirm a promise not to avert our eyes, not to abandon legitimate voices and not to allow appropriation to continue to steal stories, resources and rights. Identity is a fundamental right, a right that is to be not only protected, but also respected and valued. That respect has to be at the heart of all of our actions because it is about our common future. I have invited the ministers to take courageous action on recognizing the identity of indigenous nations. We have the power to write a new page together, a page that honours the communities, respects the voices and gives each person the dignity they deserve. This work cannot wait any longer. It is time to act with determination and with an eye to upholding justice.

I would add that this case speaks to the urgent need to create a registry recognized by first nations. As I said in my speech, first nations need to be able to determine who the members of their community are. When an individual, a minister or otherwise, claims indigenous status to gain access to contracts, that does nothing to further economic reconciliation. They say that 5% of the value of federal contracts is awarded to first nations businesses. However, if that money is constantly being misappropriated by people who check a box on a form to gain access to those funds because, in their opinion, they deserve because they identify as indigenous, we have a real societal issue.

I would remind the House that the fundamental issue is reconciliation. In this context, economic reconciliation necessarily involves respecting the power of first nations to define who they are. I have some examples. I mentioned an entity known as the Algonquins of Ontario, which has endorsed projects like Chalk River. The Indigenous, Algonquin and Anishinabe people living around Chalk River unanimously oppose the project, however, along with 140 municipalities. The fact is that certain pretendians not recognized by indigenous peoples have said that they support this economic bill. We do not know what agreements were made. We do not even know who they are. They are just people who checked a box on a form saying they are indigenous. They appropriated an identity, and that is causing real problems in today's society, because first nations are having to go all the way to the Supreme Court to assert their rights. This has to stop.

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

Madam Speaker, it is not very often that I would agree with many of the words from a member of the Bloc, but in this case I do. In fact I highlighted a very special event that took place in downtown Winnipeg, at Portage and Main, just this past weekend: The Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty was signed off. It is the first time a Métis government is actually being recognized through a treaty.

David Chartrand and his government have done a great favour to our entire nation by continuously advocating, for many, many years, for the treaty. It pleases me that as a Government of Canada, after close to 150 years, we have achieved that. If we were to check with David Chartrand or any cabinet member, we would find clear, unanimous support that it is the Métis who define who the Métis are. I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts on the issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for speaking about this historic moment. I want to commend the leadership of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who did indeed recognize the leadership of the Red River Métis.

I have previously discussed several issues with President Chartrand. We have had some friendly, productive discussions. I apologize for not being able to attend last Saturday. I had family obligations. I was due for some time to catch up with my son. That said, the moment was obviously historic. Indeed, it is historic to recognize the true Métis, because it is so easy for a person to self-identify as Métis. This issue has been settled in Quebec. There are no Métis in Quebec, and that makes relations with indigenous communities much simpler. I invite Canada to think along these lines, and I congratulate the Red River Métis.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting with my hon. colleague on the INAN committee during the revisions of Bill C-61. Today we are not here to talk about that; we are here to talk about, certainly, the member for Edmonton Centre and what is looking like identity fraud, and about the Conservatives' using the whole situation to look like they are friends of indigenous people, when they are the farthest from that.

I would say I am deeply troubled by some of the positions the Conservatives have taken, even around the crisis and the ongoing genocide of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, which the former prime minister, Harper, said was not even on his radar.

I find it a form of violence, the usurping of our identities, for political points. I am wondering what my honourable colleague thinks about that.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for her courage. She has been a member of the House for several years now and has always demanded respect for indigenous rights. Indigenous MPs can really move the debate forward. Truth is a prerequisite for reconciliation, and sometimes the truth needs to be shouted out in institutions like the House of Commons. The member for Winnipeg Centre serves as an example of this nearly every day.

We certainly do need to stand up and denounce the injustice created by the member for Edmonton Centre when he misrepresented his own identity to gain access to contracts. It is outrageous. If I were him, I would be reconsidering not only my role as minister, but also the appropriateness of continuing to be paid by public funds to hold the noble office of member of Parliament.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am Métis. I am a citizen of British Columbia and I have roots in Alberta. Many of my relatives are Métis living in the Edmonton area. This hits close to home for me, but it is also a slap in the face that someone like the former Liberal minister would try to commit fraud. That does not in any way advance indigenous rights. I completely disagree with what the NDP member said, that the Conservatives are not interested in indigenous and Métis peoples. We want to see indigenous peoples, the Métis and the Inuit thrive.

Does my colleague not agree that indigenous peoples also need to thrive right across the country?