Debates of Dec. 4th, 2024

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public Services and Procurement

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

Madam Speaker, I have breaking news. Tomorrow morning, at the indigenous affairs committee, at 8:15 a.m., the member for Edmonton Centre, the former Liberal minister, not the other Randy, but the member for Edmonton Centre, is going to be coming to committee. I cannot guarantee he will answer questions, but he will respond to questions from Conservative members about the Liberals' indigenous procurement scandal and the factors that led to his resignation from cabinet.

I will be there, at 8:15 a.m., at the indigenous and northern affairs committee. I know my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, our capable indigenous affairs critic, will be there. I know the member for St. Albert—Edmonton will be there. There is another member from Ontario, whose riding has the word “lake” in it, who will be there, as well as the member for Kenora.

This will be an important event because we have been trying to get the member for Edmonton Centre to come before committee to answer questions about the scandal. He will finally be there, and we will put to him the harm that has been done by false claims of indigenous identity.

Here is the scandal we are dealing with: The government says that over 5% of contracts go to indigenous firms, but the Assembly of First Nations says that it is closer to 1%. In other words, the majority of those benefiting from this indigenous procurement program are shell companies. There are shell companies and shady joint venture arrangements that allow non-indigenous companies to take the vast majority of the benefit, and there are outright pretenders, such as the member for Edmonton Centre, who, through their companies, are taking advantage of programs that were intended for indigenous people.

This is an overwhelming situation of abuse by non-indigenous elites and insiders, such as the member for Edmonton Centre. The member for Edmonton Centre, during the period when he was not a member of Parliament, set up a company, and that company claimed to be fully indigenous-owned to try to get contracts from the government. It did get some contracts from the government, but the company made the claim to be fully indigenous-owned.

Incredibly, the former minister says that he did not know and it was his wild partner making these claims. Why did the former minister's partner think the company was indigenous-owned? Maybe it is because the Liberal Party of Canada repeatedly and falsely claimed that the member for Edmonton Centre was indigenous. There is a proliferation of those pretending to be indigenous. According to the AFN and other indigenous leaders, there is a massive scale of indigenous identity fraud, as these non-indigenous elite insiders try to take contracts and steal benefits that were supposed to be for indigenous people.

Meanwhile, not a single firm has ever faced consequences for indigenous identity fraud. The Liberals have set up a system where, instead of the indigenous communities themselves doing so, the government controls the list of what is considered an indigenous business, which many have called a colonial system. The government set up a system where it controls who is on that list. Many people made it on that list, or otherwise bid on contracts, falsely claiming to be indigenous. There have been zero consequences for anyone, including the former minister, who still continues to be a member of the Liberal caucus and still claims his innocence.

I invite others to tune in at 8:15 a.m. eastern time tomorrow.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I first want to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded traditional territory of the Anishinabe and Algonquin people.

Indigenous procurement programs are in place because the Government of Canada is taking action to right past wrongs and move forward to advance, among other avenues, economic reconciliation. I will take a moment to explain how the program works and what it accomplishes. The procurement strategy for indigenous businesses limits bidding in federal procurement processes to registered indigenous businesses. By limiting bidding to businesses that are at least 51% indigenous owned and controlled, the government is creating more opportunities and access for these businesses.

There are huge opportunities for growth and economic development. The Indigenomics Institute estimates that the indigenous economy has the potential to grow from $32 billion to $100 billion in the next five years. The mandatory minimum 5% indigenous procurement target requires that at least 5% of the value of federal contracts is awarded to indigenous businesses. This ensures that procurement officers are considering indigenous businesses when procuring goods and services like office equipment, engineering services, technology and transportation, and the list goes on. These programs help indigenous businesses win contracts, generate revenue, gain experience and build networks, and all of this can be leveraged to win larger contracts with both public and private industry.

Indigenous procurement programs are a step toward making sure that indigenous people have equitable access to economic success and self-generated wealth. Simply put, these programs move the needle. In 2022-23, which is the most recent year we have data for, more than 300 indigenous businesses won contracts with a value of at least $10,000 through the procurement strategy for indigenous businesses.

As a government, we understand that listening to indigenous people and acting on their advice leads to optimal outcomes. As we have heard from so many indigenous partners, these programs create opportunities and they are an essential part of economic reconciliation. Indigenous leaders have also been clear that these kinds of procurement programs should stay. Unfortunately, Conservatives have refused to say if they support that 5% minimum procurement target.

In 2021, the Liberals began a five-year process to engage partners and co-develop a transformative indigenous procurement strategy to improve existing indigenous procurement policies and programs. As part of this work, partners around the table, including the Assembly of First Nations, ITK, the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association and the Canadian Council for Indigenous Business, have all been clear that indigenous people must be the ones determining who qualifies as an indigenous business.

The government wholly agrees and we are focused on collaboratively determining a path forward to transfer the administration of the indigenous business directory to indigenous partners. While we work toward this transfer and the co-development of a transformative indigenous procurement strategy, we will continue to diligently manage the directory, and support these vital and meaningful programs.

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

Madam Speaker, we still have not gotten any response from the Liberals about the rampant abuse that has taken place. The most we have heard is them trying to deny the testimony of indigenous leaders. It is like they were not there. Previously, we pasted together their denials with the actual statements of multiple indigenous leaders. If the Liberals are really committed to this reconciliation concept, then they have to actually start by listening to what the folks who come to the committee are saying.

Over 1,000 businesses have been removed from the indigenous business directory. This should suggest that there is a problem. If, at some point, the Liberals look at the indigenous business directory and see there are over 1,000 businesses on this list that they have to take off the list, maybe that suggests there is a problem with the processes they have for qualifying indigenous businesses.

Will the Liberals recognize, at least as a first step, that there is a problem here?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the Conservatives' new-found concern with issues affecting indigenous people, I really wish it was sincere. The Conservatives have not committed to continuing that 5% indigenous procurement target. In fact, they appear intent on sabotaging the success of this initiative to justify cutting it, if ever given the chance. Indigenous people, businesses and entrepreneurs should take note.

I will also highlight that outside of recent questions around the indigenous business directory, I have not heard the member, his party or his leader ask about missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, indigenous policing, systemic racism in health care, Joyce's principle, child and family welfare reforms, or anything related to actual reconciliation efforts.

Indigenous people are not puppets in the Conservatives' agenda. They deserve respect. They deserve authentic action on issues that impact them and their communities. They deserve better than this disingenuous display tonight.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising again to follow up with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration on a similar issue. It is on immigration levels and the immigration levels plan. I want to draw his attention to comments made by a senior member of the Liberal Party who is deeply involved in the Prime Minister's economic planning. Of course, I mean the former Bank of Canada governor, Mark Carney.

“Mark Carney said that Canada has experienced 'failures of execution' when it comes to immigration policy in recent years, taking in more people than the economy was able to handle." He goes on to say, “It’s not even with hindsight, it’s in real time, you can see that we had much higher levels of foreign workers, students and new Canadians coming in than we could absorb.” That is the complete opposite of what the Prime Minister claimed in his crisis YouTube video that he made on the immigration levels plan that his minister was unable to defend at committee. I am following up on a very specific part of the immigration levels plan.

Can the parliamentary secretary explain to me why the humanitarian and compassionate level was cut by 57% when promises have been made to Hongkongers, Ukrainians, Sudanese and Yazidis in Canada, and they will all be expected to fit into this particular stream that will only have 4,300 people in it?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, we are adapting our immigration plan to suit the needs of Canadian families and communities today. For the first time in our nation's history, we have set targets for temporary residents in our immigration levels plan. That means that all temporary resident programs, like those for international students and temporary foreign workers, will have limits, just as there are for permanent resident programs each year.

By taking these steps, we are helping to preserve the integrity of our immigration system, responding to community needs and ensuring that newcomers to Canada are set up for success, with access to adequate resources to support them.

We have also reduced our permanent resident targets. Our focus for new permanent residents will be to attract the skilled workers we need to build new homes and provide patient care, and to focus on transitioning temporary residents to permanent residents. These are workers and families who are already here, are supporting our economy, have already adjusted to life in Canada and are best positioned for success over the long term.

The latest levels plan reaffirms our commitment to reducing temporary resident volumes to 5% of Canada's population by the end of 2026. These reductions are the result of a series of changes over the past year, including a cap on the number of international students and tightened eligibility requirements for temporary foreign workers.

On that side of the House, the leader of the official opposition speaks from both sides of his mouth. Two years ago, during the pandemic, he said he would “remove the gatekeepers to allow faster immigration”. Just this year, he went to a community event and said we need to end deportation. He said, “We have a worker shortage in Canada. We have a demographic problem, our population is too old...we need these workers in our country.”

A few months later, the leader of the the official opposition went to a different community and said the opposite. He promises different things to different people. Canadians cannot trust a word he says.

On this side of the House, we are committed to ensuring that everyone, including newcomers, has access to the quality jobs, homes and supports that they need.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, with all respect to the parliamentary secretary, he did not answer the question, so I am going to follow up on a different part in the immigration levels plan.

There is a specific line item now for those people who claim asylum from Canada, and the government has put a target. Part of the target is that the people who apply at the Immigration and Refugee Board get approved. Not getting the immigration levels right leads to border disorder.

I want to draw the parliamentary secretary's attention to the following Globe and Mail headline: “Jordanian terror suspect deported from the U.S. had crossed the Canada-U.S. border illegally twice”. The same person applied at the refugee board for asylum over seven years ago, did not get asylum and was able to spend seven years in Canada. Canada Border Services Agency then confirmed that this same terror suspect was facing deportation when he illegally crossed into Washington State.

The minister then claimed that, for privacy reasons, he could not inform Canadians on the details of this particular case regarding how the individual crossed into Canada illegally, failed an asylum claim, was not removed for seven years and then crossed into America before American authorities deported him to Jordan. Can the minister explain which privacy legislation—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada's latest immigration levels plan for 2025 to 2027 pauses population growth from immigration in the short term to maintain well-managed and sustainable growth for the long term. It sets targets for temporary residents for the first time ever, lowering our permanent resident program targets to reduce pressure on families and communities. The plan is expected to bring our population levels back to prepandemic projections, and it is expected to reduce the housing supply gap by approximately 670,000 units by the end of 2027.

The reality is that the leader of the official opposition has no plan for the future of Canada, and his made-up math formula on immigration just is not adding up. The only plan he has is to cut, cut and cut. While the Conservative Party focuses on slogans, we will remain focused on building a stronger, more sustainable immigration system that works for everyone. We are supporting newcomers' integration and giving them a fair shot in Canada.

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

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Before the hon. member starts speaking, I would ask her to lower the boom on her headset.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Madam Speaker, I am always happy to lower the boom, but it is nice that it is on the headset.

It is an honour to rise virtually tonight on a snowy night in Ottawa to pursue a question I originally asked on October 25. It related to the regulation and management of pesticides in this country, particularly a class of chemicals referred to as “neonicotinoid insecticides”. I have to say that the response from the hon. member for Ottawa Centre was excellent. I almost felt it was wrong to ask the question in Adjournment Proceedings, but events have continued to move ahead on this file.

What I raised in question period on that day referenced an in-depth investigation by one of Canada's better investigative journalists and newspapers. That is the National Observer, which is online. They documented that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of the Government of Canada had colluded with Bayer, the manufacturer of neonicotinoid insecticides. We used to think of Bayer only as the nice provider of aspirin, but it is the producer of a lot of pesticides. It undermined the research of a Canadian researcher, Christy Morrissey, and prolonged the use of chemicals that we know to be dangerous to human health and that science knows are also particularly dangerous for pollinators. We desperately need pollinators for the health of ecosystems and for agriculture. If we lose them, it will be a multi-billion dollar hit to the economy. This is not to mention that these chemicals are dangerous, as I said, to human health and the environment.

We should have banned these pesticides by now, but I have to say, it appears that between Health Canada and Environment Canada, the Government of Canada has been investigating the role of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in response to my question, including with the pesticide manufacturer. That was documented in a further article by the same researcher from the National Observer. On the same day that I asked the question, the journalist in question, Marc Fawcett-Atkinson, published an article entitled “Health Canada probes claim that government officials helped pesticide company overturn a ban”. There is a series of articles, for those who wish to look, that are looking at the deep connection, the collusion between pesticide manufacturers and our regulatory agency in protecting pesticides instead of protecting human health and the environment.

In the debate at Adjournment Proceedings tonight, which I am honoured to participate in again, I really hope that the Government of Canada is ready to step forward. Since I asked my question, a huge coalition of environmental and health protection groups, with independent scientific support, have been asking the federal Minister of Health to at least temporarily ban the toxic insecticides known as neonicotinoid insecticides until an independent panel of experts can determine whether the benefits outweigh the known risks. Of course, no one can call an insecticide or any toxic chemical safe. I really hope that the Minister of Health, or whichever parliamentary secretary is on hand tonight, can give us an update on this process and encourage us to believe that we can, at long last, move for at least a temporary ban on one of them. That is imidacloprid, which is the most—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question and the opportunity to address a matter that is important to Health Canada and to all Canadians.

I want to assure the member and all Canadians that we take our role to protect the health, safety and well-being of Canadians seriously and hold our scientific processes to a high standard. PMRA scientists are professionals who use their expertise to support Health Canada's mandate when it comes to pesticides. They make decisions that are guided by rigorous scientific principles and rooted in objective scientific evidence. PMRA's scientific staff are experts in their fields and believe in the importance of their work and its impact on Canadians and the environment. Casting doubt on the integrity and independence of their work undermines their professionalism.

PMRA's work is governed by strict legislation and policies that ensure decisions are based on thorough scientific evaluation, using scientific evidence and robust data, whether from academia, industry or non-governmental organizations.

Public consultations are required on all proposed major decisions and do not compromise PMRA's decisions. In 2016, a proposal to cancel all uses of imidacloprid was shared with the public, based on various data, including from academics. This consultation generated numerous comments and new information.

In 2017, a multi-stakeholder forum was created to address data gaps and gather new water-monitoring data. Since then, substantial water-monitoring data and new scientific papers were reviewed to inform the PMRA's final decision. The analysis showed that, with additional protective measures, some uses could continue safely, while others would be cancelled.

The PMRA continues its efforts to communicate its decision transparently and accessibly, ensuring Canadians are informed about pesticide safety. It works closely with the science advisory committee on pest control products to ensure independent scientific advice supports evidence-based decisions, enhances transparency, communicates the science behind decisions and informs a rigorous approach.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to have to say that, wherever the hon. member said “robust”, the correct adjective is “lax”. Where he said the pest management regulatory agency uses science, I would have to say it is colluding with industry at every stage.

I urge all hon. members to see the further reporting, entitled “Deep links revealed between Canada's pesticide regulator and industry lobby groups” of November 29. It shows a revolving door with industry lobbyists and industry representatives in and out of PMRA's management.

I have had a lot of experience with PMRA. It is not listening to science. It is as if toxic chemicals in this country have constitutional rights and are innocent until proven guilty, while the rest of us are exposed to unacceptable risks.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the integrity of Canada's pesticide regulatory system depends on continued reliance on robust science as prescribed by the Pest Control Products Act.

The regulatory decision by PMRA on imidacloprid was supported by data from registrants, provincial and federal governments, academia, non-governmental organizations, grower groups and open literature. This decision was open to public consultation for 120 days, which ended in March 2017, and resulted in approximately 46,000 comments.

In addition, a multi-stakeholder forum, composed of federal and provincial government agencies, grower groups, independent researchers, non-governmental organizations and manufacturers, and facilitated by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, examined the use of—

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

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:06 p.m.)