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. 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?

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you, Senator Martin. Following Senator Brazeau’s speech about this matter, I asked him about its history, since he was someone who had previously been the head of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP. There are generally five recognized national organizations of Indigenous people, and Senator Brazeau mentioned that the government helped create them. Four are included in this bill. At one point while it was in the House of Commons, it included the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples as well, but CAP was later removed.

Do the government’s criteria consider all five of them, in the many things that the government is dealing with, to be proper national organizations for Indigenous people? If so, is this bill a bit of an outlier in that it does not include the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Martin, I am sure the committee called the minister to testify for Bill C-29. Was the minister asked by you or anyone else why CAP was removed and what criteria were used in doing so? Can you shed some light on that?

Hon. Scott Tannas: First of all, let me congratulate Senator Audette on her shepherding of this bill. This was not an easy task. She spoke of being in new moccasins, but she conducted herself and moved the work through like a person who had been in her moccasins for a long time. It was terrific, and here we are.

As was said, we heard an enormous amount of testimony, and a large chunk of it was on guaranteed membership. I would say, maybe with a bit of exaggeration, we could probably fill this council twice over with guaranteed seats from people who wanted them — groups of all kinds, all worthy and hard-working, who represent all kinds of subgroups of Indigenous people.

It was interesting to learn of the provenance of the guaranteed seats when they arrived from the House of Commons. The government — to Senator Coyle’s point — started the bill having three guaranteed seats, which were for the three rights holders. It was the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN and the Métis National Council, or MNC.

Then in committee — and I suspect they got into the same kinds of issues that we did — they discovered that there were five national Indigenous organizations funded by the government, and only three were represented, and two weren’t: NWAC and CAP.

The committee said we should have all five national organizations at the table. I can see the government’s original rationale for going to the rights holders and limiting it to that. But I can also see the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the other place’s rationale for having all five.

But then it goes to the floor, and the government, together with the NDP on one side and the Conservatives and the Bloc on the other, decide to pluck one out. Now it makes no sense. There is no sense to be made of the selection of four. There’s some sense to the three and some sense to the five.

As we went through this process, we tried to find some kind of rationale for this. We know what the government wants. We don’t know why they want it. We suspect there’s somebody in that group of three or four who doesn’t like CAP and doesn’t want them or whatever it is. We don’t know.

One person who, for me, was important, and part of the reason why I’m going to support this amendment, is Marie Wilson, one of the original commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. She sat through all of the testimony — God bless those who testified — given over so many days and from across the country, listening to the stories and developing the Calls to Action. I told her we’ve had all these problems, we don’t understand and we’re a little frustrated because we can’t seem to get the answers. I asked her, “Whom did you envision?” And she pointed it out to us, quite simply, with a sentence: “We envisioned those who were at the apology.” Well, those who were at the apology were the five national organizations.

For me, that is very significant.

The other thing that’s significant is that all the way along, we have had 6-to-5 or tied votes in the committees who listened to, in our case, 50-some witnesses. I don’t know how in-depth the House went, but I’m certain it was to some degree, and we were always split on this issue.

I want to commend Senator Martin for having the bravery to take this question, which I think regards something quite right for us to decide: Should we send the bill back, which we’re now sending back with amendments, with this awkward arrangement with four guaranteed seats and one excluded seat that we can’t find a rational explanation for? Or should we send it back with an amendment and give them one more chance to decide whether they want three or five seats? It makes sense for us to at least consider sending it back to the House of Commons with the other amendments — it’s going back there anyway — to highlight that this is still an unfixed problem and that maybe they should look at it.

I would also say focusing on and excluding one national organization diminishes decades of its work. Some might say, and we heard a bit of it here, that they’re in a bit of disarray. Frankly, a number of the national organizations have been in disarray at different times. Any organization that’s around for 10, 20 or 50 years will go through ups and downs.

To me, out of fairness and, if nothing else, out of respect for the past contributions of that particular organization, it is at the very least worthy of one last look in the Senate and, I would say, one last look in the House of Commons.

I want to thank everyone who has spent their time and asked great questions here today. I’m keenly aware of the fact that I’m not Indigenous, but I have to say that this bill is extremely important. It’s important because it forms a commission that is going to do the work that, I believe, is so vitally necessary so that the 96% of Canadians who are not Indigenous get the message from the 4% who are.

The work that is going to be so vitally important is not to become another political organization that we create and fund. It’s about being an organization that is going to measure, monitor, broadcast and hold accountable governments and organizations who have a role to play in reconciliation. It is so vitally important — that’s why we have to give ourselves every opportunity to get it right.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Michèle Audette: I will try to be short, but I’m speaking in English, so it might take longer — ensuring that my colleague Senator Martin gets it. Thank you so much for advocating for this group because maybe one day I’ll ask you, “Can you also advocate for this group?”

I want to be very honest in terms of where I’m coming from: I’m coming from a place where, not long ago in Canadian history, we weren’t allowed to be more than 10 people. We are called “Indian” under the Indian Act, so I would say the “Innu people.” It was illegal.

In the 1970s, many organizations were popping up or created, such as NWAC and AFN — it was another name: the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. But it slowly opened the door for any government that came into power to say, “I will consult with them. I will speak with them.”

But at the end of the day, it was taking my voice away as a human being, as an Innu woman and as a person who wonders, “If I don’t belong to those organizations, where do I go, or who is speaking on my behalf?”

It’s important for us to have that debate today.

So here is what I propose. Maybe it won’t be through this bill, because it’s a deep-rooted problem. There are so many places where we can go further. If we’re sincere, we can have a study on that. But with Bill C-29, I can understand groups. I don’t only mean CAP, which wants to get in to make sure they have the urban voice.

I live in Quebec City. It used to be the traditional land for many nations. Reserves made us think that “this is our land,” which is false. So that is no matter where we live.

For me, I believe that with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, I was honest with them. I said, “I’ll be the sponsor. I’ll be quiet. I’ll let you do the work, your lobbying and advocacy, but I cannot support. This is why: You are not my government. If you want to be a non-profit organization, perfect, but to say you’re my voice, you’re taking something that we fought to take back.”

So let’s have that dialogue, discussion and debate somewhere else and not within this bill, please. Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Marty Klyne: I could make this a question; it’s more of a statement.

I have heard what Senator Tannas has had to say here. Has anybody on the committee, as well as witnesses or others, delved into this whole permanent guaranteed seating?

I was under the impression that, at one point, there was going to be three seats, and others would be intermittent. I’m surprised — I can’t say that I’m pleasantly surprised — that NWAC is on there. I’ve done a lot of work with them — they have a right to be there — through the experiences I’ve had, and watching Harry Daniels when he was the national president, and how he dealt with NWAC at the constitutional table when there was no seat for them. He had an extra seat; he invited them to the table. It put everybody on their heels because that was the only woman representative who was sitting around that table.

I’m a little surprised. Senator Tannas was on to something there with what he just said.

I would not opine upon this without first talking to Cassidy Caron, the President of the Métis National Council, or without calling my chief. I’m a member of Little Black Bear’s Band. I would call the chief there, and ask him to consult with the chief-in-council. I would also want to speak to some of the regional chiefs within the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN.

To the point that Senator Tannas was making, I would throw that back over to those who have guaranteed seats on that, and those three.

The constitutional definition of “Aboriginal peoples” — thank you very much, Harry Daniels — includes Métis. It is First Nations, Métis and Inuit; those groups are the constitutional definition of “Aboriginal peoples.” They should have a say in this.

This is a reminder of something from the early days of trying to form this: There was First Nations representation around the table as it was being discussed. Somebody asked one of the chiefs there — a chief from Saskatchewan — “What do you think about what the Métis need or want?” He said, “That’s a little colonialism because we don’t speak on behalf of Métis. If you want to know what they think, you ask them and get them to this table.”

Has anybody explored this type of thing? Has anybody consulted with these other organizations, which are the established organizations within the Constitution?

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: I wanted to say that the three, especially the AFN — I know for certain — are not rights holders. They represent rights holders, but they aren’t themselves.

I have heard of CAP before. They were a really great organization at one time, and then it fell into disarray. I know because I worked and I heard what happened there. That is why I asked them the questions in the committee. I asked them the questions and asked them to send the answers by the end of that week. They never sent the answers, and those are critical.

I became concerned that they weren’t doing the work they are saying they do and they’re not representing the people they say they do. If they were doing such great work — and we keep hearing that, but with this group of CAP, I have not heard one example of great work. I have tried to be fair to them. I have told them four times that I would like this information, and they never came back with it. That makes me suspicious.

When you say there’s respect for past contributions, yes, we have that, but we need to respect what is happening now. My sense is that there is very little being done.

Yes, this bill is extremely important, and we need to base it on truth. We have not received truth from CAP. We understand NWAC; we worked extensively with them on Bill C-69, working with Indigenous women across the country, so I know how hard they work.

You can’t say there’s symmetry or it’s not fair. I look at who does the work. I will support those.

There is the issue of “pretendians” and identity theft. That was the basis. Who is CAP? They still have not said who they are. There is not a CAP organization in Manitoba. I don’t know anyone whom they represent, and that is why if we say this is truth and reconciliation, then let’s base it on truth. Not one person here has said what they’ve done.

I just wanted to put that out there. I don’t have anything against them. If they had told me what they did, who their membership was, and what they had accomplished, I would support them, but I can’t.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I didn’t intend to participate in this debate until Senator Klyne asked his question just now.

This is a difficult matter. I want to say that I respect Senator Martin and the leader of my group, Senator Tannas, for what they have said. But I also want to mention that, as a representative of Inuit in Nunavut — and by the way, it’s International Inuit Day today; I didn’t get a chance to make a statement on that — as a representative of a region with a population that is 85% Inuit, I do have to say that the national Inuit organization, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, which represents Inuit in all four regions of Canada, has recently released an open letter to Canadians about the erosion of rights and status. They are very concerned about what President Obed has said is “. . . a tidal wave of false claims to Indigenous identity.”

You might wonder why I feel this is relevant to the debate on this amendment today, but I think it is relevant and will influence my vote against the amendment, with all due respect to Senator Martin. I was a part of the committee. I heard all the witnesses and the debate. I heard from CAP, and I think Senator Tannas has very eloquently described the steps that got us here today. But the issue for the ITK is that there is a concern about a member of CAP which has been endorsed by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, called the NunatuKavut Community Council, or NCC. As President Obed said in a recent public letter, they have made efforts:

. . . to engage federal leaders, academic institutions, and Canadians in an attempt to advance its illegitimate claims to Inuit rights and status. NCC seeks to secure the lands and rights of legitimate Indigenous peoples and to further misappropriate the already limited resources that are intended to benefit Inuit, First Nations, and Métis.

NCC is not an Inuit rights-holding organization, and the organization has no affiliation with the four Inuit treaty organizations that collectively represent all Inuit in Canada.

Instead, their affiliation is with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP.

In light of the strong concerns about this organization, which is part of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, usurping Inuit identity according to their claims — and I have met with the community council, and I know they were greatly encouraged by a previous minister of Inuit-Crown relations who signed a memorandum of understanding, which led them to believe that they would be recognized by the federal government as a rights‑holding organization — I cannot in good conscience, as a representative of Inuit in this chamber, support the inclusion of CAP along with other rights-holding organizations on the truth and reconciliation council as recommended in this amendment.

I would note that the Innu Nation — who are also neighbours with the NunatuKavut Community Council as are the people of Nunatsiavut in Labrador — have also questioned their rights‑holding identity, and have supported Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, in rejecting what ITK called their false claims to Indigenous identity.

This is not an easy vote for me, and, like Senator Tannas, I am acutely aware of my non-Indigenous status. However, as a representative of Inuit in this chamber and having discussed this matter with President Obed, who represents the Inuit of Canada, I will be voting against the amendment.

Thank you.