Senator Brazeau: Yes.

Senator Brazeau: Thank you very much for the question. Absolutely, in terms of when we deal with urban and off-reserve Indigenous issues, we have the National Association of Friendship Centres, which provides direct services for the benefit of Indigenous people living off reserve. But the “political” organization has been and is currently the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

Like I said earlier, I am going to talk more in depth about this at a future time very soon.

There was a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2016 called the Daniels case, which was named after a former leader of the Congress, Harry Daniels. Harry Daniels took the Government of Canada to the Supreme Court, basically saying that the Government of Canada had jurisdiction for all Aboriginal peoples in Canada because the practice of the federal government has been — regardless of political stripe or colour — that once a native person moves outside the reserve, they become a provincial responsibility. That is the position of the federal government.

I have never met any premier who has accepted this position in all my years of experience. What happens? Well, people fall in between the cracks.

However, the Supreme Court decision came to confirm that because the Government of Canada created so many different labels for Indigenous peoples — treaty, non-treaty, status, non-status, on-reserve, off-reserve, Inuit, Métis — the Supreme Court concluded in 2016 that the federal government has jurisdiction and is responsible for all Aboriginal peoples, Indigenous peoples. Their practice has been, for the most part, Indigenous people living on-reserve. That is why, even 20 years ago — I don’t know what the figures are today, but up until 10 years ago, for every $8 spent by the federal government on-reserve, they spent $1 off-reserve, yet the majority of the First Nation and Indigenous population in Canada reside off-reserve.

Here is a perfect example, in my view, of how the government of the day is trying to offload to provinces, and they are trying to do away with their responsibility. But we have a 2016 Supreme Court decision that confirms they are responsible. I don’t know if that is perhaps the reason why the Congress was omitted from being on the board of directors or perhaps it is because the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples — because of this very issue of exclusion — supported the Conservative Party of Canada in the 2006 election. Perhaps it is payback for the Congress having been politically involved at that time because they were being excluded by the Paul Martin government.

People will have their different opinions and viewpoints on Indigenous organizations, but like I say, this is an Indigenous organization that has been there since 1971. You know what? It is the organization that also brought about the Powley decision in terms of Métis harvesting rights.

There are a lot of good things to say about our organization, but it seems as if the government has been purposefully wanting to limit its transactions with this organization probably because of the Supreme Court decision. Time will tell.

[Translation]

Hon. Hassan Yussuff: Senator Brazeau, would you take a question?

Hon. Patrick Brazeau: Honourable senators, we’re already on Bill C-29, so we are moving at lightning speed here.

I have just a couple of comments on Bill C-29. In the preamble, it states:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with Indigenous peoples through renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government and Inuit-Crown relationships based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership . . . .

Colleagues, that sounds very nice. Those are beautiful words. I have seen this before and I have seen it too often.

If we move along to clause 10 of the proposed bill, we have the proposed directors of the board of this new organization, namely representatives of the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council and the Native Women’s Association of Canada.

Colleagues, the last time that I checked, there were five recognized and funded national Indigenous organizations in Canada. I don’t know if it’s by design or just a simple omission, but there is no proposition to have on this board any member of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which I used to lead as national chief.

Like I said, section 35 of the Constitution gives us a definition of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. It says that the term “aboriginal peoples of Canada includes . . .” — is not limited to, but includes — “. . . the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.”

Now, it doesn’t say that these peoples are going to be represented specifically by Indigenous organizations.

Colleagues, for those who don’t know, on June 11, 2008, the former government and the former prime minister offered an apology in the House of Commons. I was able to be there, along with four other Indigenous leaders at the time.

On June 12, 2008, the next day, Indigenous leaders were to give speeches in the Senate — on the original Senate floor. Colleagues, I had to fight my way to make sure that I was able to speak the next day because we were not on the list. The Senate at the time had to introduce a motion to allow the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to speak.

I do not know what is going on with political parties, but they are playing partisanship politics with Indigenous peoples. There will be a time where I will speak more in depth about the political relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada since Confederation. But, colleagues, I think that when this bill goes to committee, it is absolutely necessary that the Minister of Indian Affairs appear before the committee — not bureaucrats — and tell us why they have excluded one of the national Indigenous organizations, one that has been in existence since 1971.

For those of you who do not know, we often talk about the “big three” organizations: the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Assembly of First Nations and the Métis National Council. Well, colleagues, the Métis National Council came out of what was originally called the Native Council of Canada, which is the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples today. Many of the people who are on the Métis National Council today broke off from the Native Council of Canada in the 1980s.

I will just remind you, colleagues, that, in my view, being a former elected Indigenous leader of an organization in this country, there are five organizations, and it is up to the minister to tell us why he has excluded one of them. If there is an exclusion of one recognized Indigenous organization, I fail to see how there is any respect, cooperation or partnership here.

At the end of the day, these organizations are not the organizations that are going to be negotiating nation-to-nation partnerships with the Government of Canada. They don’t have that right. They are Indigenous organizations, so this nation-to-nation concept is not going to happen with those organizations. The nation-to-nation concept will happen with the Algonquin nation, the Mi’kmaq nation, et cetera.

To conclude, these five Indigenous organizations — four, in particular — were created because of the 1969 white paper that was introduced by the current Prime Minister’s father. We must not forget that these organizations are also funded by the Government of Canada. It is unfortunate that I have to say this, but if these organizations decide not to play ball with the government of the day, sometimes they are punished. I certainly hope this is not the case for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. They are one of the recognized organizations, and they deserve to be there. If they are not there, hopefully we’ll hear from the minister as to exactly what the reason or reasons are why this organization, which has been around since 1971, has not been included. Thank you.

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you, Senator Brazeau, for spelling that out.

Am I correct that of those five Indigenous organizations you spoke of, four are included in this bill on the council, but the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is not? I also believe that they were inserted as an amendment at one point in the House of Commons process, and then, all of a sudden, I think that amendment was taken out. Could you shed a little bit of light on that?

As well, could you tell us your understanding of the approximate number of people that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represents? Thank you.