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.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, it being 5:15 p.m., I must interrupt the proceeding. Pursuant to rule 9-6, the bells will ring to call in the senators for the taking of a deferred vote at 5:30 p.m., on the adoption of the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, with an amendment and observations), presented in the Senate on October 26, 2023.

Call in the senators.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Black, seconded by the Honourable Senator Osler, for the adoption of the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, with an amendment and observations), presented in the Senate on October 31, 2023.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Black, seconded by the Honourable Senator Osler that the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, with an amendment and observations) be adopted.

Motion negatived on the following division:

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.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman:

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”.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Black, seconded by the Honourable Senator Osler that the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, with an amendment and observations) be adopted.

Motion negatived on the following division:

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.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman:

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”.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Honourable senators, I will make a very short statement. This is a complex issue and I’ve listened to it quite carefully. At the end of the day, I want to follow the principle of “nothing about us without us.” I therefore take my lead from my Indigenous colleagues in the chamber and feel it’s my duty and responsibility to be an ally, especially when they’ve explained the issue as well as they have.

The suggestion that Senator Audette made to discuss the issue further or look into it further at another point is a useful compromise so that we’re not completely ignoring the request by CAP — the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples — to be part of the council. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Do we have agreement on a bell?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

The Hon. the Speaker: Those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.