Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining that support for mental health in Canada is an important and pressing issue, as is support for other dimensions of our health care system of which all aspects are feeling the strain of increased demand, increased costs and never enough resources, either provincial or federal.

The federal Minister of Health and his counterparts have regular discussions about the provinces’ priorities and capacities, and those discussions will continue.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Colleagues, I rise today to draw your attention to certain measures in the 2023 federal budget related to climate change.

On page 69, Budget 2023 states the following:

Since 2015, the federal government has taken action to build Canada’s clean economy and create good middle class jobs. This includes: Putting in place a federal carbon pricing system, which puts money back in the pockets of Canadians and gives businesses the flexibility to decide how best to reduce their emissions . . . .

The centrepiece of these measures is imposing a price on those who produce greenhouse gas emissions, or GHGs. This policy was implemented in 2018 with the approval of the Senate.

[English]

The logic of carbon pricing is simple: Emissions that impose an environmental cost with pollution should have a price to encourage reduction at this time of climate crisis. Carbon pricing is considered by top economists to be the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions. The yearly rising price is a powerful signal to consumers that fossil fuels will become more expensive and that decisions to adopt cleaner alternatives will result in substantial savings.

When alternative technologies exist or more efficient ones are readily available, the price on carbon provides a strong incentive to switch. The carbon price is not a punishment but an incentive to seek alternatives sooner than later and take action to reduce emissions to meet our targets. That is the reason why it is not, strictly speaking, a tax.

In their 2021 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded at paragraph 219:

. . . The levies imposed by Parts 1 and 2 of the [Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act] cannot be characterized as taxes; rather, they are regulatory charges whose purpose is to advance the . . . regulatory purpose by altering behaviour. . . .

[Translation]

In June 2021, we passed Bill C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada’s efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. The bill requires the government to set national GHG emissions reduction targets, and to establish a planning, assessment and reporting process for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

Unfortunately, reaching GHG reduction objectives is a major challenge. Earlier today, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Jerry DeMarco, published a report finding that Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan isn’t enough for the country to reach its emissions reduction target of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030.

As the chamber of detailed, non-partisan analysis, must we not reaffirm our commitment to meeting the set targets and to the carbon pricing policy recognized by a majority of economists in Canada and around the world as the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

[English]

Since the adoption of the carbon price policy, a lot of political rhetoric has emerged. Some claim that this policy has contributed significantly to inflation; others claim that this policy is responsible for the high price of food. But we, as independent senators, should not be moved by partisan lines, or by misleading arguments put forward by powerful lobbies. We should, rather, attempt to obtain all the relevant facts before reaching a conclusion.

One of these relevant facts is our inflation rate; it is currently at 3.8%, while it is at 3.7% in the U.S., 4.3% in the European Union, 4.9% in France and 6.7% in the U.K. Thus, it seems that we are doing better than many other developed countries.

On September 8, Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, indicated that 0.15% of the Canadian inflation rate can be attributed to the carbon price. To put it differently, in 2023, the carbon tax accounts for an extra $0.30 on a $200 grocery bill. If you want to go back to the time of its introduction four years ago, it now accounts for an extra $1.20 on a $200 grocery bill. Renowned University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe confirms that the carbon tax is responsible for less than 1% of grocery price increases.

Another fact to consider is that the federal price on emissions is a backstop program. Respectful of our federal system of government, each province and territory can determine how to price carbon emissions to reach national targets. Currently, B.C. and Quebec are the two provinces that have put in place provincial programs to meet the reduction targets by measures adapted to their reality. To put it differently, the system was designed to provide provincial governments with flexibility on the details if they meet the scientific targets required to address the climate crisis.

[Translation]

As a result, under the existing provincial system, farmers in Quebec pay less carbon tax than those governed by the federal program. Meanwhile, other sectors of the Quebec economy may pay more.

[English]

Another feature of carbon pricing is the rebate system. Page 31 of the 2023 budget states that the federal price on pollution puts more money back in the pockets of 8 out of every 10 Canadians in the provinces where it applies. Incidentally, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, agrees with that conclusion.

For the current fiscal year — 2023-24 — the Department of Finance estimates on page 207 of the budget that the proceeds from the pollution pricing framework will amount to $10.1 billion. For the same period, it estimates on page 212 that the proceeds returned will amount to $11.2 billion — which is $1.1 billion more. Quite clearly, the proceeds from the pollution pricing framework are not used to finance government operations, military procurement or social programs, but returned to Canadians.

According to the PBO, the costs of heating and curing fuels to farmers, including the carbon price, represent, on average in Canada, 0.8% of their overall expenses — estimated by Statistics Canada at over $77 billion. That percentage is 0.5% in Alberta, 0.4% in Manitoba and 0.3% in Saskatchewan.

There are, of course, some variations between the categories of farms. Without surprise, the largest share of energy costs compared to overall expenses is for greenhouses, which range between 4% and 5%. For that reason, greenhouses with glass roofs receive an 80% exemption from the carbon tax in order to impose on them a carbon price comparable to other farming enterprises in Canada. For oilseed and grain farms, heating and curing fuels represent 0.4% of their expenses, and for animal production farms, the percentage is 0.7%. Finally, under the current federal system, all farmers are also exempt from the diesel and gasoline fuel charge — used on farms for operating combines, tractors, trucks and some other machines.

Incidentally, the carbon price paid by farmers in the eight provinces and the territories in 2023-24 is estimated by the PBO at $13 million in connection with propane, and $63 million in connection with natural gas — for a grand total of $76 million. Also worth noting, 58% of this total will be paid by farmers in Ontario, 22% by those in Alberta, close to 16% by those in Saskatchewan and close to 4% by those in Manitoba. Those in the Atlantic provinces will pay about 1% of the total.

It is also worth noting that despite the April 1 increase of $15 per tonne on the carbon price — to bring it to $65 in 2023-24 — farmers using natural gas have paid, on average, less for it this year because the commodity price is down compared to last year.

[Translation]

The other thing we need to think about is the passage of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures. My colleague, Senator Clément Gignac, sponsored this bill in the Senate. On June 10, 2022, at second reading, he talked about four amendments that Bill C-8 would make to the Income Tax Act. He described the fourth amendment as follows, and I quote:

Fourth, recognizing that a large number of farmers use natural gas and propane as part of their operations, Bill C-8 proposes a refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in provinces in which the federal fuel levy applies . . . .

[English]

The required steps to implement the refundable tax credit to farmers are now in place. Its operation can be summarized as follows: In each province, a pot is created where the carbon price paid by farmers is put. This amount is shared between the farmers of this province as a tax credit. The proportion allocated to each farmer is based on a percentage equal to his or her total expenses divided by the total expenses of all the farmers of the province.

The recent report from the Agriculture Committee regarding Bill C-234 contains a series of interesting observations adopted unanimously. One of them recommends that the Department of Finance work with the Canada Revenue Agency to target the refund more precisely and effectively to farms that rely on natural gas and propane. The committee also noted that if Bill C-234 is adopted, an adjustment to the credit system provided in the Income Tax Act will be necessary to avoid double compensation. Other observations deal with alternative technologies, additional support for agricultural clean technology and the fact that climate change is a major and worsening threat to the stability of Canada’s agricultural sector.

In closing, the climate crisis is causing death and suffering in Canada and around the world, as stated many times in this independent chamber. We have all breathed the smoke. Emissions continue to rise. We know what lies ahead for young people and future generations — unless we take urgent action. That is why our group, Senators for Climate Solutions, has urged us to do more. Let’s seize every opportunity to act.

Colleagues, what is the price of the air we breathe? What is the price of our grandchildren playing outside? What is the price of this miraculous earth? Let us reaffirm our support for a price on carbon and a greener economy.

To conclude, the Agriculture and Forestry Committee report should be part of the context as we proceed to a fulsome and thorough debate that will enable a fair discussion of all amendments and points of view throughout the chamber, to quote Senator Duncan.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: Inquiry No. 5, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to the budget entitled A Made-in-Canada Plan: Strong Middle Class, Affordable Economy, Healthy Future, tabled in the House of Commons on March 28, 2023, by the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, P.C., M.P., and in the Senate on March 29, 2023.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator, I’m sorry, but the time for debate has expired.

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Audette, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for the third reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, as amended.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator, I’m sorry, but the time for debate has expired.

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Audette, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for the third reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, as amended.

Hon. Michèle Audette: Thank you, honourable senators.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu-aimun.]

I also want to thank the Anishinaabe people. Thank you for welcoming me on your land every day. I hope that will continue for a long time as I continue working as a senator.

Thank you also to my fellow senators.

Honourable senators, I’m rising today to discuss and share some thoughts with you about Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

I really like history, so before I get into the crux of the matter, I think it’s important to review what has been done here in this chamber, what you did long before some of us arrived in the Senate.

As you may have heard when I gave my maiden speech, I really like talking about beading, portaging, the path of healing and so on.

Every bead that we leave is precious and helps us along the path of healing and reconciliation, but also along the path to building a new relationship and maintaining the existing one, a relationship that is, of course, built on respect, partnership and the recognition of rights.

In 2007, we were all very animated. For those who remember, our leaders, members of our families and people who were affected by residential schools worked very hard to reach a settlement on residential schools to provide reparations. This settlement contained several provisions, including the one to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Obviously there was talk of making an apology. I want to thank the leaders, the people of that time for their courage and their determination, who allow us today to pick up where they left off, to start over and move forward in partnership.

In June 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized to Indigenous peoples. For many of us, for me too, this apology was important. It was more than symbolic. It put words to our pain and to much of our suffering.

In his message, which I encourage you to reread, Prime Minister Harper apologized to the First Nations, the Métis and the Inuit for those who experienced the effects of residential schools or suffered at the residential schools.

This was part of his message:

The government now recognizes that the absence of an apology has been an impediment to healing and reconciliation. Therefore, on behalf of the government of Canada and all Canadians, I stand before you, in this chamber so vital, so central to our existence as a country, to apologize to aboriginal peoples for the role the government of Canada played in the Indian residential schools system.

In 2015, a man we knew and worked with, our former colleague, the Honourable Murray Sinclair, together with former commissioners Wilson Littlechild and Marie Wilson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, submitted and made public their final report. Many of us were there. I was there. We remember.

During a 2018 study by the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, Marie Wilson, a former commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, explained the following:

It was the largest substantive consultation of indigenous people on any subject in the history of our country, Canada’s 130-year history of forced residential schooling for indigenous children. We based our 10-volume findings on almost 300 days of public hearings in every region of the country, from coast to coast to coast. We based our findings on dozens of commissioned research reports, together with an exhaustive reference of hundreds of documented sources.

She added the following:

Most compellingly and most centrally, we based our findings on almost 7,000 recorded statements from former students who spent their childhoods in the more than 150 church-run, government-sponsored institutions known as residential schools. They were isolated from traditional lands and cultural groundings and deprived of kinship ties and parental devotion, protection and love.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, after receiving the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, stated the following:

Today, on behalf of the Government of Canada, I have the honour of accepting the Commission’s Final Report. It is my deepest hope that this report and its findings will help heal some of the pain caused by the Indian residential school system and begin to restore the trust lost so long ago.

On June 3, 2021, the Senate passed Bill C-5, to create the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. During the legislative process leading up to Royal Assent of the bill, which responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action 80, our colleague Senator Francis said the following:

Honourable senators, the national day for truth and reconciliation is but one step. However, it is the sum of all our individual and collective actions, of all the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that, when fully implemented, will create our new normal. If we follow this path, we will continue to move forward as a country in a positive direction.

Colleagues, this chamber also passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action 43 and 44.

Of course, the Senate also followed suit with an Act to amend the Citizenship Act, which responded to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action 94.

Some things have happened, and it’s important for me to talk about them.

[English]

It has been nearly eight years since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada released its final report and the 94 Calls to Action. These Calls to Action present a pathway as well as a road map for all levels of government, no matter where we are or where we live. It could be municipal, provincial or territorial government. It could be the education sector, private sector or the health sector. It is everywhere in this country. We’re all responsible for doing something.

For me, it’s also very important to remind ourselves that it’s to ensure that Indigenous people are respected, valued and, of course, included for today, tomorrow and the next generation to come.

[Translation]

That is what Bill C-29 seeks to achieve by establishing a national council for reconciliation. This is one more positive step forward, one more thing Canada can do to make major strides along the shared path of reconciliation.

Bill C-29 acts on Calls to Action 53 to 56 in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It will create a national council responsible for monitoring progress on reconciliation in Canada, publishing reports and making related recommendations.

In addition, Bill C-29 will enable the conduct of research in accordance with a multi-year plan. Research is important; data is important. Integrating Indigenous and western knowledge and thinking is crucial to advancing reconciliation in the hope of developing new approaches and new programs to support understanding among people outside the government apparatus.

Marie Wilson, a former TRC commissioner recently testified before the committee during its study of the bill. She reminded us of the following:

We are all aware, I hope, that we have lost more than half of the survivors who were alive at that time. All these many years later, we are still not able to answer questions about whether things are getting better or worse. What are the inspirational things we can learn from? What are the discouraging and deteriorating things that we need to put a sharper lens and attention on? So the national council, as we said at the time, was essential.

[English]

The journey of this bill has been very long. Remember, when I started as sponsor of this bill, as we say in English, or to embrace it, as I would say in my own words, I was with a group, and now I wear another pair of moccasins, but my passion, feelings and emotions are the same. We have to remember that the people who were involved before us who worked on this are key people. I would say thank you, of course, to the people who provided their knowledge, passion or expertise, which is the interim board and the transitional committee. Remember this: They were and today are still independent and Indigenous-led — we’ve been asking for this — who were key in this process. I want to say thank you for all your hard work.

[Translation]

Almost a year ago, on December 1, 2022, this bill was passed unanimously in the House of Commons. I want to thank all the political party representatives and everyone involved for their hard work on this bill in committee. Thank you.

I’d also like to thank my colleagues, the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, who took the time to listen to the 52 witnesses who agreed to come and see us and share their concerns, vision or interest in taking the matter further, and who made it possible for the bill to move forward. It took many hours of consideration, not to mention all the briefs and written responses that the committee received. As you will remember, the task was difficult, but we made it through and I’m confident. Thank you to everyone who came and shared, once again, their truth with us.

Their testimony allowed us to make observations and engage in constructive discussions among colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples and, of course, to propose ways of strengthening the bill.

[English]

Following Royal Assent, the first step for establishing the national council for reconciliation, of course, will be to establish its board of directors, which will be composed of between 9 and 13 people who have knowledge of and experience with Indigenous people and the work of the council. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the transitional committee would jointly select the first circle of people. It would form the first board of directors with a composition of no less than two thirds being Indigenous people — a place where it was very sensitive, and I think it’s important that I say this in French, because in French it will be more comfortable.

[Translation]

Rights-holding organizations, what does that mean for an Innu woman, a woman from Quebec? I celebrate both my cultures.

For example, I’m a member of the Uashat mak Mani-utenam community, and my band council if we use the jargon of the Indian Act — Our chief will participate if he wishes, whether I vote for that person or not. It is our form of governance, which I completely respect, regardless of where a person lives, regardless of the place of residence. Our elected members can participate in the assembly of chiefs of Quebec and Labrador, which can also participate at our discretion — we, the elected members of the community, have that power — at the assembly of chiefs.

That’s what it means when we talk about rights-holding organizations.

We give a mandate, as in the democracy of Canada, where it is possible to belong to a political party or a social movement; it is your individual right. It is very important when we talk about these organizations. They have been very sensitive to our approach to organizing or proposing this board of directors.

As a result of this sensitivity, of course, there will be exchanges to ensure that the Inuit, the Métis and the First Nations members of these political rights-holding organizations can appoint people to sit on the board of directors.

We also got a lot of comments and had many conversations about making sure that men, women, young people, older people, people who live in the North, people with expertise, residential school survivors and second-generation survivors are all represented.

When we look at the provision of the bill on who can be or become a member, we find these people. They are there. Of course, they’re also there to represent those who speak French as a first or second language. French is the first language for some Indigenous nations in Quebec. We must therefore make sure that there is a place for those people and for those who want to keep their Indigenous language. This will be an important exercise for the board of directors, which will have to ensure that this mosaic and this expertise from the various territories and communities have a place in this big circle.

Those who were there may remember Mr. Case, who is part of the transitional committee. He was wearing a beaded vest. I want to paraphrase what he said, which was very important.

He told us that we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In other words, we need to understand that when we start something, it’s not always perfect, but it’s still fundamental and important.

Once the board of directors has been chosen, of course, the whole technical aspect will be paramount in incorporating this organization under the law governing non-profit organizations. Subsequent to that, the board will be able to obtain non-profit status, which will also give it legal status so it can obtain contracts. Most of us have worked in this kind of non-profit organization. The organization can have its own name, sign contracts and, most importantly in this case, it is not part of the government apparatus.

Ensuring that the organization plays an independent role was a very important Call to Action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. For me and those who followed the work, the importance of independence must be emphasized once again.

[English]

In their testimony, witnesses raised concerns over funding — the lack of funding or concerns about the annual funding for the council in Bill C-29. That is an important point that I want to raise. We were concerned about this as members of the Indigenous Peoples Committee and want to make sure that is also in the report as an observation.

I don’t think I was there during our study on the day the minister came and that question was raised.

I will go through what Minister Anandasangaree said about the funding.

[Translation]

Budget 2019 included $125.6 million to support the establishment and operation of this council, including initial establishment funding of $1.5 million in the first year and a $125-million operating endowment fund. It is enshrined in legislation in addition to being included in Budget 2019.

It’s obviously impossible to know what the costs are in the first year. We have to rely on experts who have administered much larger funds than these $126 million for Indigenous peoples. This trust is important, of course.

I thank my colleagues for the questions they asked when the minister appeared. Minister Anandasangaree committed to provide additional funding if the council requested it. This is what he said:

In this particular case, one of the key recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is that this council be independent. It would be independent of government, which means there is no ongoing dependency on government. The initial $125 million is a significant investment into an endowment that will enable the council to operate from a starting point in a robust way. Now, as we develop the council and as the council comes up with an action plan and figures out the scope of the work and budgetary requirements, we need to be open to definitely increasing that. I, for one — and I can assure you our government — will respond when that call is there. As a starting point, $125 million is a significant amount of money, you will agree, that will get this started. As the work plan is developed and implemented, we will certainly be open to additional conversations, and my personal commitment would be to support additional funding when required.

Then, we heard from representatives of political organizations. Senators will recall that last spring, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, ITK, raised a number of issues concerning rights-holding organizations already working towards reconciliation and preserving the integrity of existing bilateral mechanisms. I thank my colleague Senator Patterson for working with those organizations and the government to propose amendments. Nakurmiik, thank you for the work you have done.

In my beautiful little office, members of the transitional committee and political staff capitalized on our relationship to discuss how to ensure that this council doesn’t simply serve as a box to be checked off when government decides to consult an Indigenous organization. No, this shouldn’t overshadow the important work being done with governments, including the federal government. That is important. Thank you for the proposed amendments to this effect.

[English]

That said, the amendment adopted by the Indigenous Peoples Committee recognized that the council will not take the place of the existing nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown or government-to-government relationships. That’s very important. This council will be entirely different than the permanent bilateral mechanism and the relationship already in place. It will not be an agent of the Government of Canada. That’s very important.

It will be a non-political body led by strong Indigenous leadership which operates independently of government and promotes and monitors progress towards reconciliation.

Within three months after the end of each fiscal year, the council must submit an annual report to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on the state of reconciliation and its recommendations. Within 60 days of the release of this report, the Prime Minister must, on behalf of the Government of Canada, respond to the report by publishing an annual report on the state of Indigenous people that outlines the Government of Canada’s plans for advancing reconciliation.

[Translation]

What we still need to know is how the council will get the information it needs to do its job and fulfill its mandate. Bill C-29 provides clear direction in that regard. Under the bill, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations must, in collaboration with the national council, develop a protocol respecting the disclosure of information by the Government of Canada to the council. Bill C-29 provides for the development of such a protocol within six months after the council is incorporated.

Such a protocol will make it possible to coordinate and streamline the disclosure of information from several federal departments while, of course, respecting the provisions of the Privacy Act. There are precedents in Quebec. Once laws and protocols are in place, then many people will finally be able to get on the path to healing. That is another subject.

If the council has an interest in information held by a province or territory, it will have the ability and the latitude to negotiate other agreements.

Honourable senators, our responsibility is to go a little further, to take another step to ensure that we can celebrate, react to or learn from what is being done or what should be done. The independence of this council is a fundamental principle. It is very important.

When we were examining this bill, Minister Anandasangaree reminded us that it is important for his government that the council be independent.

In conclusion, honourable senators, there are people who leave an impression on us sometimes. There are people who touch us, but there are also those whom we love. I remember that man, Jay Launière-Mathias, who participated in a march last year from Mashteuiatsh to Quebec City to meet the pope. He gently reminded us to focus on what is important: supporting the survivors of residential schools.

I was also touched by the words of our colleague and friend Senator Greenwood, who said, and I quote:

Sometimes the purpose is already there. The purpose is that we are lifting up the survivors and the gift that they gave us with their stories.

[English]

Colonization is interwoven into this country’s social, economic, political and cultural fabrics. Untangling it and repairing the wrongs caused by its legacy won’t be an easy path, but we need to do it and we need to acknowledge that many of us have already started that.

As we debate this legislation before us today, I urge — with love, of course — my colleagues to maintain their focus on the clear path in front of us: advancing reconciliation.

This bill is an important step along this journey. It responds directly to four Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It also commits Canada, which is very important, to taking meaningful action year over year — not only in one year but year over year — on initiatives that bring us further along in our journey of reconciliation.

We have an opportunity here through this legislation to fulfill a vision and make good on a significant part here in this chamber but also, of course, across Canada, across this big place, Turtle Island, the place where I live.

But creating this national council for reconciliation is overdue. It will also bring more and more people to read or embrace the report that comes every year, even the national political organizations. They might use it or add something, or they might say, “No, not this time,” but that’s normal. In my world, we’re not all the same, and that’s what makes us special and powerful.

[Translation]

I want to once again quote Mr. Case from the transitional committee. Some of you might have seen the beadwork on his vest. This is what he said:

I’m a pretty good bead worker.

As a beader myself, I can say that he’s amazing.

He continued:

Do I think this vest is perfect? Absolutely not. To you, sure, but I can see that there are still things that I would change about it. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not a beautiful vest and that it should not go out into the world and do some nice work.

I will end with a personal note. When trying to figure out the impact that all of this could have and which amendments could be made, we turn to those we love and ask, “Mom, am I in a good place with this bill?”

I want to tell you about Nishapet, a woman who was born in the woods. She has never been to a hospital. She was born in the woods and is among those who almost lost their lives due to the great famines that our people have endured on our land of Nitassinan. Her mother, a nomad, told her, “Nishapet, you must go to school. You must receive an education. You will be the only educated member of our family.”

She was talking about being educated at residential school. I’m sharing the story of my mother-in-law, who is 82 years old. Living in a residential school cut her off from everything she knew, affecting the integrity and dignity of this Innu woman, but also affecting her relationships with her sons, with her children.

The same is true of my mother, Evelyne. She was told, “You are going to school. You’re going to go and you will stay there.” Then, like thousands of other people, they were subjected to abuse and certain situations.

However, during the Pope’s visit last year, I was with them every day, and I told them that I heard some people say, “I’m not interested in any apologies,” while others were saying, “Finally, I’m hearing something meaningful.”

At the end of the visit, these two women said to me, “Why does he have to be the only one to apologize? Why is Canada not putting a program in place?”

I told them, “Yes, lots of things are happening, mom.” Anyway, the point is, last September 30, we passed legislation on this subject. We got a society and governments to rally around a bill that is now part of our culture in Canada. It will bring about action, education and empowerment. Go to a mall, go anywhere and you’ll see people who aren’t of Indigenous or Inuit or Métis origin proudly wearing orange shirts. Education about this is happening.

Then the two women said to me, “It’s good to see people walking with us. It should have started long ago, but you can thank them.”

Little things like that are what make me realize that coming here every day is worth it because there are good people. We don’t always agree, but for some things, we’re the ones who have to spread this message on behalf of the women and men who experienced these horrific things. Like me, they are very hopeful. I’m a very optimistic person. I wasn’t always this optimistic, but as I’ve aged, I’ve gained some wisdom.

I’m an optimistic person, despite the multi-generational or intergenerational trauma. I have hope and determination.

Just imagine if we had the kind of collaborative, coordinated approach across the country that many people have taken within their communities by creating wonderful initiatives to bring people together and get to know one another, to take action or work together for reconciliation.

That is how I see this national council. It could help us to take another step forward and to be better. We have the right to be better.

In closing, I want to say that I left you a little bead during my maiden speech in this chamber. I left you another one today, and it is up to you whether to pick it up, take it or just look at it. I will respect your choice, but it will respond to some of the Calls to Action, and we should give ourselves a gift.

[English]

We need to do more, we need to go further, and we need to build this together. I hope you will support this bill. To my mom and to my mother-in-law, thank you.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Would Senator Dalphond take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Did you want to ask a question, Senator McCallum?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-29, an Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, as the official critic.

Bill C-29 provides a framework for the implementation of a national council for reconciliation. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s — TRC — Call to Action number 53 sets out the conditions for the establishment of the council, stating specifically:

We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal Peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation. The legislation would establish the council as an independent, national, oversight body with membership jointly appointed by the Government of Canada and national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non‑Aboriginal members. . . .

As I said in my second reading speech, above all, “Reconciliation must be centred on the future of Indigenous peoples . . . .” As senators, we have an important responsibility to ensure that what we do is in the best interest of all those who will be most affected by the bill.

I would like to take this time to acknowledge the work of Senator Audette as sponsor, our chair Senator Francis, all the members on the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, the clerk, the analysts and researchers for all their work on this important bill. As a committee, we heard from witnesses and organizations with compelling testimonies, stories and knowledge.

Bill C-29, in its current form, recognizes the following groups: the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK; the Métis National Council and the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC. The bill guarantees them all a seat.

I support Bill C-29 and the work of these important national organizations. Indigenous reconciliation lies at the heart of Canada’s ongoing journey toward acknowledging past wrongs and building a more just and equitable future for all Canadians, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. Reconciliation represents a commitment to healing the historic wounds inflicted upon Indigenous peoples, a commitment to mending the broken relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians and a commitment to building a nation where the rights, cultures and contributions of Indigenous peoples are fully recognized and respected.

It is crucial to acknowledge the historical injustices that have been perpetrated against Indigenous peoples in Canada. For centuries, Indigenous communities have faced forced removal from their ancestral lands, the imposition of residential schools and discrimination that has persisted through generations. The consequences of these actions are still felt today in the form of economic disparities, health inequities and social challenges that disproportionately affect Indigenous communities.

Bill C-29 is, at its core, an important step toward reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada. Almost eight years after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report was published, we finally have a bill in front of us to honour Call to Action number 53 for the creation of a national council for reconciliation.

In my opinion, the Call to Action is an important step toward reconciliation. If we want to rigorously evaluate the progress of reconciliation in Canada, we must have a national council who can monitor, evaluate and report to ensure government accountability. The government must respond within 60 days to the annual report which outlines the Government of Canada’s plans to advance reconciliation.

As I reflected on the testimonies and the second reading speeches, many concerns were raised. For example, during her second reading speech, Senator Anderson raised the important issue of consultations, or lack thereof, by the government with Indigenous peoples. It goes against the TRC report’s Calls to Action, which say the consultations must be done with the Indigenous organizations and not hand-picked by the government. I share that concern because, too often, the federal government will consult whom it wants.

Senator Francis made a valid point in his speech on the committee’s report that the TRC is based on research and consultation which recommended the establishment of the national council. In my experience, the federal government, as a whole, too often uses the term “consultation” very broadly. In regard to Bill C-29, consultation with Indigenous organizations is crucial.

During our committee study, we heard from a range of witnesses: national organizations, provincial associations, stakeholders such as youth, and many others. The committee heard concerns, especially from the ITK, or Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, on the possibility of the national council on reconciliation affecting bilateral mechanisms and government consultations. Amendments were accepted at the committee and hopefully they clarified that the council being created by the enactment of this bill should not interfere with these mechanisms.

Finally, the committee heard an important number of witnesses voicing their concerns on the composition of the board of directors. As written in clause 10 of Bill C-29, we currently have four of the five national organizations who will have a guaranteed seat on the board of directors: the AFN, ITK, the Métis National Council and NWAC.

Honourable senators, the one national organization missing from this bill is the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP. For over 50 years, CAP has advocated for the rights and interests of urban, non-status, off-reserve First Nations, Métis and southern Inuit peoples. By doing so, they have often been the only voice for these indigenous communities. In the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, an amendment was moved to include the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Native Women’s Association of Canada as guaranteed members of the board of directors.

That amendment passed with a majority vote, but once at the report stage, the government decided to reverse the committee’s decision by removing only CAP from the board of directors’ guaranteed seats. We heard testimonies at committee as to why CAP is certainly deserving of a guaranteed seat. Therefore, at our Senate Standing Committee on Indigenous Peoples, I moved an amendment to reinsert CAP to give them a guaranteed seat on the board of directors, along with the other four groups. The amendment was narrowly defeated in a tie vote.

Honourable senators, as I said earlier in my speech, I support the bill. I believe Bill C-29 is an important step in reconciliation. I bring up the question of representation on the board of directors because I am concerned, like some of my colleagues on the committee, that the government is removing an important voice from the board of directors. In my opinion, the decision goes against the spirit of the bill with the government hand-picking whom they accept or reject.

The preamble of Bill C-29 clearly states “Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the need for the establishment of an independent, non-political, permanent and Indigenous-led organization . . .” As you see, colleagues, Bill C-29 is clear: The national council on reconciliation is to be a non-politically led organization. Yet the government’s decision to accept NWAC and not CAP seems political. Instead of accepting both groups as adopted by the House committee, the government seems to have applied a unique set of rules to NWAC but not to CAP. The government reversed the committee’s decision. It is an unfair decision to leave CAP out of the board of directors after they were included along with NWAC at committee in the other place.

The purpose of the council is to advance reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. How can reconciliation advance for all when a national organization like CAP is ignored? In good conscience, I cannot stand idle.

The testimony heard in our committee was compelling. Senator Brazeau offered great insight on the long history of CAP. The senator provided important context to better understand that there are five national organizations and that CAP has an historical heritage. His testimony was important, and I thank him for his insightful words.

And as CAP National Vice-Chief Kim Beaudin said:

Just because our people move off reserve does not mean their trauma disappears. Reconciliation cannot be just for some; it must be for all.

Honourable senators, this is a powerful statement that reconciliation must be inclusive to all.

With 11 provincial and territorial affiliates, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP, can provide important insights from different regions of the country and continue to work towards reconciliation in Canada. By adding CAP, a fifth national organization, I believe we will have a better representation of voices from all segments of Indigenous communities across Canada.

Including CAP in the bill ensures that this legislation truly reflects the spirit of Bill C-29: that the council is non-political and independent. Including CAP as a guaranteed seat on the council is to acknowledge the many experiences and challenges faced by the hundreds of thousands of Indigenous peoples they represent across Canada.

As I have said earlier, the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the other place supported the amendment, while at our Senate committee, the amendment did not pass due to a tied vote.

Therefore, I now turn to you, honourable senators, to seek your support in correcting the government’s political decision to remove only CAP at report stage in the other place, and to reinstate the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples as a guaranteed member on the board of directors of the truth and reconciliation council. In doing so, we would also be reflective of one of the important observations made by the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples’ report on Bill C-29:

The Board of Directors of the Council should strive to include a broader representation of Indigenous peoples than those currently identified in the Act; in particular, the council should reflect the wide diversity, backgrounds and experiences of Indigenous peoples regardless of where they live.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator McCallum, do you have a question?

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: As a former student of a residential school, I want to correct something.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Audette, will you take a question?

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Thank you for your speech. I have asked CAP four times these questions, and they have not answered them. Perhaps they gave you the answers. I asked them: Who are your members? How do you verify their indigeneity? How are the elections carried out? What percentage of membership is in each province? They’re saying that their membership is 850,000. When I challenged them in committee, they reduced it to 600,000.

How do you practise reconciliation without land or language? When they called me last week, I said that I would not speak to them unless they answered these questions, and they haven’t to date.

So that causes me great concern.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Thank you very much for your speech, your presentation and the work you do on these issues and committee work. It’s very important, and I appreciate the sensibilities you bring to the discussion.

I was searching for information earlier on different organizations, and in Labrador right now there is an organization that first began to present itself as Métis and now as Inuit. There is controversy about it. I don’t know the details, and I need people who are from these communities to inform me.

Similarly about CAP, I have spoken to Senator Brazeau and have a good understanding of what he attempted to do when he led that organization. But from various native organizations — not all of them, but many of them comprised of rights holders — there has been concern expressed about CAP with regard to whom they really represent, how they represent them and how the organization works.

This may not be a fair question to ask you. I’m just wondering if you learned anything more than what you’ve told us thus far in committee, and if there are other people who are going to speak to your amendment, particularly Indigenous senators. It’s a question that I hope people will try to answer for some of us who aren’t as familiar with CAP as perhaps you have become.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-29, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended, in clause 10, on page 5,

(a) by replacing line 7 with the following:

“been nominated by the Métis National Council;”;

(b) by replacing line 10 with the following:

“Canada; and

(c) by replacing line 12 with the following:

“in paragraphs (1)(a) to (e), the remaining directors may”.

Thank you.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Thank you for your speech, Senator Martin.

We know that, since the early 1970s, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has been representing First Nations people who live off-reserve. We also know that one of the most important aspects of the work done by the Assembly of First Nations has been recognizing the jurisdiction of First Nations governments, not only over their members living on-reserve, but also over their members who move off-reserve.

Isn’t there a risk of double representation if the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is added?

When you were doing your research, did you find any information on this subject?

[English]

Hon. Mary Coyle: Thank you very much to my colleague and fellow member of the Indigenous Peoples Committee, a committee that has worked so hard. I know you’ve worked very hard. This was not an easy bill for any of us, on so many levels and in so many ways. I thank everybody for their work.

Senator Martin, when we had our second reading of this bill, I asked a question about differentiating between rights holding, membership-based national organizations, let’s call them oranges, and others that are peaches, pears or plums. You had a hard time answering that question. But this issue keeps coming up again and again. That is, this claim of 800,000 and some odd members of CAP and claiming that pretty much everybody who doesn’t live in a First Nations land-based community as their own.

At our committee, I did not speak against CAP. I have nothing against CAP. I know they provide good services to people. But what I spoke against was us, as senators — and at that point as a committee — making the choice that CAP should be at that table when I personally felt that decision should be made by those initial Indigenous leaders who would see the value of which other organizations should be at that table.

My question for you is this: Do you agree that the membership be on those three rights-holding organizations and the one national Indigenous women’s organization so that any other seats there should, frankly, be ones that are discussed and decided upon by those four as opposed to by us?

Hon. Yvonne Boyer: Would the senator take another question, please?

Hon. Éric Forest: Would the senator take another question?