Senator Martin: I beg to differ because, as I said, it’s been 10 years since this promise was made. An NDP-Liberal government official said last month that, according to the current tentative timeline, the National Monument to Canada’s Mission in Afghanistan will not be unveiled until 2027.

Leader, given your government’s poor track record for getting anything done, especially in regard to this particular monument, why should Canadians have confidence in the 2027 date?

Senator Gold: I don’t know how to answer that. I like a good slogan. If I hear one once or twice, it’s cute and will land. After a while, it becomes like last year’s hits that seem to fade and become tiresome.

The fact is that this government is pursuing the policies that it deems to be in the best interests of Canadians.

Senator Martin: The Liberal government has failed to live up to its promise to fund a Canada Mental Health Transfer despite the growing scale of the mental health crisis, the government’s expansion of medical assistance in dying and the widespread use of dangerous, highly addictive drugs.

Should Canadians expect that the Canada Mental Health Transfer will be included in this fall fiscal update? If it’s not there, what should Canadians make of that omission?

Senator Gold: I’m not in a position to advise as to what may or may not be in the fall economic update, but when that becomes public, I think Canadians will know exactly what the government is intending to do.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you. Would you be so good as to convey this question with a request that we get an answer prior to the start of the second meeting of states parties for this very important treaty?

Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much.

Senator Dalphond: Gladly.

Senator McCallum: I heard for the third time people saying that there was extensive consultation done with residential school survivors. As a former student who went through an eight-hour day to do my story, you cannot consult when we are in the midst of darkness and just starting to sift through experience. Don’t you think that testifying publicly about painful personal memories and having it relegated to consultation is hurtful and does injury to former students? Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Audette: Thank you very much. If the choice of words hurt you, I’m sorry. If the words I used for quotes from a former commissioner hurt you, I’m sorry. However, for many people in my family, and for me as I participated alongside them, when we were asked if the consultation was clear and precise, I might reply that we were asked if we had any recommendations or suggestions.

I suppose it depends on the region, but there will never be enough dialogue. We can do away with the term “consultations.” I will heed your message, however, because it’s important. You are among those who were subjected to these traumas. I’m so sorry. I’ll be careful.

Nevertheless, I want to honour those who asked us to do more. Maybe we can choose better words together so we can get more done together.

[English]

Senator Martin: I think that NWAC deserves to be there with the other guaranteed seats. What I’m saying is that I also believe that CAP is a national organization that has been recognized in a number of ways, including by receiving funding. Our colleague Senator Brazeau came to the committee and gave us a very good testimony on the history and work of CAP. He himself led the organization.

I think there are so many organizations across the country. Senator, I know you work tirelessly, but I think that not everybody will have worked with every single organization. I just stand by the position that I’m taking because of what we heard at committee, including from Senator Brazeau.

Senator Martin: Yes.

Senator Martin: I don’t see it as arbitrary. Only NWAC and CAP were included to have a guaranteed seat in the House. This is the history of the bill and what happened in the other place.

There are so many organizations. I’m not taking away from any of the others as to what they do and how important they are, but CAP is a national organization that has done a lot of work and it was accepted by the committee in the other place. That’s why I’m focusing on CAP and no other groups, which I could have. I don’t know how I would choose because there are so many that do such good work.

I think this will be the challenge for the council, even after we adopt this bill, namely, what will the makeup of the board be? I chose CAP specifically because of what happened in the other place.

Senator Martin: I can’t answer that question specifically, senator. As I said, I am basing it on the testimony that we heard and the information that I gathered. I was on their website, and I have met with their leadership. Like I said, they were included in the House. That’s why I brought it forward. That’s what I can say to your question.

Senator Martin: Yes.

Senator Boyer: Thank you. I am curious as to where the hundreds of thousands of members come from with CAP. My experience with CAP was when I first became a senator, I asked them to come and sit with me and talk to me about their membership. They did. The question that I had was, “Who are your members and where are they?” The answer I got was, “I don’t know.”

I’m curious to know where that 850,000 comes from because, as a Métis, they don’t represent me and they don’t represent any of my family or anybody I know.

Senator Martin: Yes, exactly. There are five national organizations. The government kept the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC, but removed CAP, and it’s not clear what criteria they were using. That inconsistency was noted. As I said earlier, based on the testimony that we heard and the history of this bill, I believe that CAP should be included.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, there have been consultations and there is an agreement to allow a photographer in the Senate Chamber to photograph the introduction of a new senator.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Senator McCallum: Yes.

Senator Quinn: Thank you very much. During the committee’s work, did any members — CAP is purporting to represent whomever they represent — but the people who are represented, did they email? Usually in these situations, we get advocacy from people who are part of the organization. So did any of that happen? Were there any emails or letters that committee members or you received that said, “Hey, I’m part of that organization, and they do represent me.” Was there any of that at all?