Senator Tannas: Thank you.

Senator Tannas: It’s a very good point. Again, it goes to the heart of one of the discussions we had, which was that we have the three national rights-holders organizations. There were two other organizations that are also national organizations funded by the government, et cetera. If they had stuck with the three, we would have had a very consistent position that we all could have gotten our minds around.

When they added the other two in committee, and then took one out, we wound up with something that we could not rationally explain — except to say that CAP is not a worthy organization. We’ve heard about that today.

If that is the case, then let the government say it. Let the other national organizations say it by asking the government to remove CAP specifically, and send it back to us with that stripped — that will diminish the work, surely, that CAP has done in the past, but at least there will be some honesty around the whole process.

Senator Tannas: We did not talk, nor did anybody volunteer — that I recall — in any of the testimony to say, “Look, we don’t want to be part of this if these guys are part of it, or those guys.” There was none of that done, certainly, in our committee.

We can draw our own conclusions as to what conversations are going on between the three main organizations, plus NWAC and the government. Perhaps that product is what we have right now. But it was a bit chaotic in reaching that number of four.

It’s worth having them revisit it over there, and send us the strong signal that they have, in fact, consulted, and that what came over here was right, even though it doesn’t appear to have any symmetry to anything we’ve been able to divine — and certainly no symmetry to what was on the mind of, at least, one of the three Truth and Reconciliation Commission commissioners when they drafted the recommendation that this bill is meant to adhere to.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I’m pleased to rise on behalf of the Canadian Senators Group to welcome you, Senator Cuzner, to the Senate of Canada. As others have mentioned, you are no stranger to Parliament Hill. We’re looking forward to working with you.

With the announcement last week of five new senators from Atlantic Canada, there have now been 1,000 people in the last 155 years — since 1867 — who have been appointed to the Senate. That’s a remarkable milestone we should all reflect on — over its history, 1,000 people from every corner of this country who have been called to sit in this chamber.

Interestingly, just over 300 of those 1,000 people appointed to the Senate also served as members in the House of Commons, though it has been over a decade since this last happened.

I think the appointment of an experienced parliamentarian to this place is an asset, and it’s a tradition that, when balanced, should be welcomed. A truly independent Senate welcomes Canadians of all political perspectives, because a diversity of thoughts and experiences is critical to our duty to represent Canada’s distinct regions and minority communities.

Senator Cuzner, we look forward to working with you and seeing you apply your well-known affability and unique insights as an experienced parliamentarian to your work as an independent senator from Nova Scotia. Again, welcome to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Scott Tannas: My question is for Senator Gold.

On October 24, Senator Dennis Patterson asked you a question about whether the government was seeking an extension to the Supreme Court of Canada’s deadline on Bill S-12. You replied saying that we should respect the deadline. Two days later, you informed the Senate that a three-month extension was granted.

We know extensions don’t happen overnight. Senator Gold, when did the Attorney General of Canada first give notice and apply to the Supreme Court for an extension? When were you informed? Finally, were you happy with the process?

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. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I, Senator Scott Tannas, note for the record that I believe I have a private interest that might be affected by Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), which is currently before the Senate.

The general nature of the interest is that I am a director and Chair of the Board of Foothills Creamery, a maker of butter and fine ice cream, a private corporation that manufactures dairy food products for sales outlets throughout Canada. This corporation is owned by the Western Investment Company of Canada, of which I am President, Chief Executive Officer and a significant shareholder.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, Senator Tannas has made a declaration of private interest regarding Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management) and in accordance with rule 15-7, the declaration shall be recorded in the Journals of the Senate.

[Translation]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, entitled Quorum and Mandate of the Committee, presented in the Senate on June 20, 2023.