Senator Martin: Yes. This is a complex situation, and I am learning so much by being at committee and by looking through Hansard of the other house and understanding what happened.

For me, I’m just looking at the intent of the bill, the spirit of the bill — reconciliation — and the importance of including the range of voices and groups that are in Canada, but I almost feel like it’s next to impossible because there are only 13 seats.

In terms of the guaranteed seats, I know of CAP from the work that Senator Brazeau did, the work that our government previously did and that it is an organization. Their website is quite extensive. There is the Daniels decision that recognized them.

I am just thinking about inclusivity and respecting a national group such as CAP. Other groups’ opinions about the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP, what they have or have not done with them — all of those complex factors — are not something I am looking at. I am looking at the testimony we heard, what happened in the House and the spirit of this bill. I’m urging honourable senators to consider what I’ve said and vote accordingly.

[Translation]

Senator Martin: I can’t speak for CAP, but as I said in my speech, I’m aware — based on testimony that we heard at committee as well as from looking at their website — that they have 11 provincial and territorial affiliates, and have done extensive work for over 50 years. I stand by what I included in my statement today, but in terms of speaking for them in regard to your specific questions, I don’t have the answers to them.

Senator Martin: I don’t know that.

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 Martin: Yes.

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.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, in May 2014, former prime minister Stephen Harper said a national memorial to those who served in Afghanistan would “ . . . ensure that their contributions are forever in the hearts and minds of Canadians . . . .”

Here we are approaching Remembrance Day almost 10 years later, and this monument is still not in place. An official design was only announced this past June, and its selection process is surrounded by controversy, as the Trudeau government overruled a professional jury’s design choice. Last week, the Minister of Veterans Affairs confirmed to a House committee that construction has still not begun.

Leader, why has the Trudeau government mismanaged the creation of this monument so badly?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, the Trudeau government has yet to fulfill a promise — another promise — made during the 2021 federal election campaign to create a new federal transfer to the provinces and territories called the Canada Mental Health Transfer, with an initial investment of $4.5 billion over five years.

In March, after the federal budget failed yet again to put this transfer in place, the Canadian Mental Health Association said that your government was out of touch with the mental health crisis in our country.

When the previous minister of health was asked about this a year ago, he would only say that he’d continue to engage with the provinces. Leader, what is the current status of the Canada Mental Health Transfer?

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.

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. 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. 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.