Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I will say a number of things.

First, these are very troubling allegations of a superior lying, and I have no comments on the truth or otherwise of the claims of one employee to his former superior.

As you know, colleagues, the CBSA has suspended contracts with GC Strategies, with Coradix Technology and Dalian Enterprises. The government is aware that the RCMP is investigating these allegations.

Misconduct of any kind in procurement is never acceptable. To protect the integrity of the ongoing investigations, the government cannot provide any further comment.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Senator Gold, as mentioned earlier by Senator Dennis Patterson, yesterday, Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Jerry DeMarco issued a report indicating that Ottawa does not have a clear plan to achieve its 2030 emissions reduction target of at least 40% below the 2005 levels. Canada is the only G7 country whose emissions are higher now than in 1990. In fact, Canada has never met a climate emissions goal, even though we have had 10 plans since 1990.

Senator Gold, what does the government have planned to recalibrate, accelerate and get on track to meet its emissions targets?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for underlining this important issue, an important one and a moral one for those who have served our country admirably, and their families as well.

I’m advised that the government is investing $445 million over the coming years to tackle the important issue of housing. It’ll be used to build new housing, bases and wings, and renovate a number of existing housing units. That’s one piece of it. In addition, I’m advised that the government has put into place a number of policies to support veterans and their families. For example, increasing rates of pay for military members to assure alignment with increases in the federal public sector; implementing an interim relocation policy to enable remote work options; and covering some additional expenses for dual residency for up to six months if a Canadian Armed Forces member cannot sell their residence. This is not a complete answer to the problem, that is for sure. It continues to work on this important matter.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, in March, almost 2 million Canadians used a food bank to feed themselves and their families. This number has increased by almost a third in one year, and it’s increased 79% compared to just four years ago.

These aren’t just stats, Senator Gold; they are Canadians. They are young people with jobs. They are seniors on a fixed income who can’t afford home heating. They are families with children. In fact, one third of all food bank users are now children. After eight long years of the Trudeau government, this is where we are as a country, with record food bank usage. How many more Canadians will go hungry if the Prime Minister gets his way and quadruples his carbon tax?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): The issue of food insecurity for a growing number of Canadian families is a serious one, it is a challenging one and it is one that the government is taking seriously within its areas of jurisdiction.

Not being an economist and not wanting to minimize at all the impact of every aspect of the increased cost of living on Canadians’ ability to feed their households with the nourishing food that they deserve, the evidence is not at all clear that the price on pollution adds a significant amount to the growing food costs. We heard that expressed quite clearly in a recent intervention in this chamber.

The fact is Canadians are struggling; the federal government is doing its part, as are our provinces and, thank goodness, the non‑profit sector. We should all continue to do our part to help Canadians in need.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. It’s the position of the government, and all responsible professionals and students in this matter, that vaccines are absolutely the best defence to protect Canadians from the flu, respiratory diseases more generally and COVID-19 in particular. We saved countless hundreds of thousands of lives through vaccination programs during the pandemic, and that continues to be the centrepiece of both provincial and federal governments’ approach to combatting and protecting Canadians.

It’s important that Canadians protect themselves, especially seniors and those most vulnerable. The government will continue to use its national surveillance system. It monitors the spread of influenza and shares that information with provincial counterparts — as well as influenza-like illnesses — throughout the year so that decisions can be better informed. I’m assured that the government will continue to follow the advice of health experts in this important area.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, my question concerns two federal programs aimed at helping homeless veterans. In 2021, your government promised $45 million for a two-year pilot project to reduce homelessness among veterans through such measures as rent supplements. Rent is now the highest it has ever been in Canada, at an average of $2,149 in September according to the Rentals.ca National Rent Report. Your new program was finally launched in April of this year and accepted applications for eight weeks.

Government leader, has any of this funding been allocated? Have any veterans been helped under this program? Why did it take so long to get it up and running when rent has doubled in the meantime?

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak briefly to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. I want to say that this has been a very difficult bill to deal with because although it is a direct response to Call to Action 53, it’s important, I believe, to provide a little context.

Let’s go back to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action and recall that they were the result of three years of intense work done by our former colleague, the Honourable Murray Sinclair. The Calls to Action were released in 2015. On December 8, 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau said that:

There is no relationship more important to me — and to Canada — than the one with First Nations, the Métis Nation, and Inuit.

Since then, in December of 2016, the government established permanent bilateral mechanisms with an initial investment of $88.6 million in the 2017 and 2018 budgets. They created tables where First Nations, Inuit and Métis representatives could raise their specific priorities directly to the federal government. This was a development since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Calls to Action.

The Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee, or ICPC, table has turned out to have been a very effective tool used to identify and work on Inuit-specific priorities. To date, this table has secured literally hundreds of millions of dollars for issues of importance, such as the construction of housing and other critical infrastructure and the elimination of tuberculosis. It has also helped secure apologies for historic wrongs such as the dog slaughter.

Colleagues, we find ourselves on the brink of signing into law a mechanism that, in the view of some, is no longer required because we now have different accountability mechanisms in place, with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people having a direct line to the government. As well, there is a ministry — Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada — that focuses on this important work. It was very important to Inuit that the work of this council not take away from or erode in any way the good work being done through the ICPC tables. That is why I was happy that the committee supported the adoption of my amendment, brought forward in consultation with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK. That amendment clearly kept the mandates of the council and the ICPC table separate.

However, not every concern brought forward by Inuit was able to be addressed through the amendments. The Inuit did express a concern that there was not Inuit specificity in this bill. While I can understand to a certain extent that there cannot be Inuit‑specific terminology in a pan-Indigenous bill, it is still important to hold the concerns of Inuit in mind. That’s why I wish to speak briefly on this point.

One example would be the importance of ensuring that the staff of the council should have some capacity to work with unilingual Inuktut-speaking elders. Another large concern is the lack of representation of Inuit women. While the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC, was granted a seat on the council by this bill, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada were not. NWAC has said time and again that they represent Inuit women, but Pauktuutit President Gerri Sharpe told me as recently as today that it is Pauktuutit that truly represents the voice of Inuit women and girls. They have done so very effectively for decades and will be celebrating their fortieth anniversary the year.

Why is this distinction so important? It’s important because there is a real fear that the makeup of the council may lead to it becoming unbalanced, with a heavier emphasis on First Nation issues. If this is to be a pan-Indigenous council, reporting on the progress of reconciliation, then it must truly be pan-Indigenous. That means ensuring that Inuit are properly represented.

In this connection, honourable colleagues, without wanting to tamper with this bill any further, I would like to put on the record a challenge to the Native Women’s Association of Canada, which would be welcomed by Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, to reach out to and work more closely with them on this reconciliation council.

Thank you. Qujannamiik.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. I want to thank Senator Audette for sponsoring the bill and the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples for being diligent and respectful in their work.

Colleagues, it is impossible to compress into one speech the history of First Nations when looking through the lens of conciliation. The necessity to be selective leads me to concentrate on narrow dimensions of First Nations’ lives, starting with pre-contact, to show their history of independence, and then showing the intentional devolving structure of self-determination of First Nations.

The rippling effects of the trauma and rupture to our lives caused by colonial policies and legislation have served to reinforce and legitimize racist stereotypes about First Nations. Our stories about residential schooling were told to challenge the stories that reinforced the naturalized kind of racism that permeates Canadian society. It is to make ourselves, as parliamentarians, accountable to foster, maintain and build relationships between non-Indigenous and Indigenous peoples.

I will conclude with an amendment.

Colleagues, in the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, author Charles C. Mann states:

. . . researchers have made fascinating discoveries about the first fifteen thousand years of American history . .. that fit well in the book’s basic arguments: that Indian societies were bigger than had been previously believed; that they were older and more sophisticated than previously believed; and that they had greater impact on the environment than previously believed.

In the book entitled Clearing the Plains: Disease, Politics of Starvation, and the Loss of Aboriginal Life, author James Daschuk states:

. . . prehistoric populations on the Canadian plains, rather than small, nomadic, band-level societies, were large, sophisticated, “tribally” organized communities made up of as of many as 1,000 individuals working communally to produce “an almost industrial level of resource exploitation.” These large groups provided enough labor to drive herds over large distances and then kill and process them, creating large surpluses of food that were traded (often for corn and other crops) or stockpiled for future use. Food surpluses gave communities time to pursue quests for more than just food, developing formal institutions within them . . . .

During the Little Ice Age between 1275 and 1300 A.D.:

. . . the choices made by communities were the difference between success and oblivion over the long term. In Greenland, rigid adherence to unsustainable European farming practices marked the beginning of the end for Norse settlement, while their indigenous neighbours shifted their subsistence strategies across the arctic, adapting to the harsh conditions and surviving in the long term.

Honourable senators, after 500 years of sustained contact and interaction, First Nation lives and First Nation government relations have been left in a deplorable, human-generated state of disarray and despair. Government policies and legislation deliberately undermined the viability of Aboriginal communities in order to serve the never-ending quest for assimilation of First Nations and the desire for land.

We were never inherently physically weak peoples as history makes us out to be. The impact of the arrival of epidemic diseases was worsened with the newly imposed reserve system.

As author James William Daschuk wrote:

The most significant factor under human control was the failure of the Canadian government to meet its treaty obligations and its decision to use food as a means to control the Indian population to meet its development agenda rather than as a response to a humanitarian crisis. . . . To the hungry indigenous population, this meant that officials quickly turned the food crisis into a means to control them to facilitate construction of the railway and opening of the country to agrarian settlement. . . . The Dakota, who did not depend on the bison and were not signatories to the treaties, were able to maintain relatively good conditions in their communities. This is evidence that the emerging TB epidemic was not an organic phenomenon but the outcome of prolonged malnutrition and failure of the dominion to meet its treaty commitments.

. . . By 1883, reports of tainted food and reserve deaths were common. In addition, government regulations that kept the distribution of provisions on reserves to a minimum required to sustain life exacerbated the TB problem and led to provisions rotting in storehouses even as the reserve population suffered from malnutrition. . . .

. . . With the infrastructure in place for large-scale settlement and the establishment of agrarian capitalism, the well-being of indigenous people in the west largely disappeared from the public agenda. Bands considered to have been hostile during the insurrection of 1885 were punished. Their food rations were cut off, and their weapons and horses were confiscated. Reserves became centres of incarceration as the infamous “pass system” was imposed to control movements of the treaty population. . . .

. . . Establishment of the residential school system, now widely recognized as a national disgrace, ensconced TB infection, malnutrition, and abuse in an institutional setting that endured for most of the twentieth century. . . . It is for all Canadians to recognize the collective burden imposed on its indigenous population by the state as it opened the country to our immigrant ancestors to recast the land to suit the needs of the global economy in the late nineteenth century.

The first physical sign of a substandard institutional system is the increase in sickness and illness of a population. Health as a measure of human experience cannot be considered in isolation from the social, political and economic forces that shape the experiences of First Nations through colonization and colonialism.

Colleagues, the colossal denial of human rights and centuries‑long assault were for the purpose of obtaining First Nations’ lands. In the book Seeing Red, by Mark Cronlund Anderson and Carmen L. Robertson, the authors state:

The idea that Aboriginals desired to cede their lands, imperialism notwithstanding, clearly makes no sense at all unless one embraces a colonial ideology that endorses imperial land theft. Why would anyone freely give up huge regions of traditional territory in return for a degraded status on small areas of marginal land? . . .

Honourable senators, the majority of stories — 92% to 96% of stories — in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, are based on the stories of First Nations from effects of the history above. We must acknowledge that the experiences of Inuit and Métis are different from First Nations, and therefore their solutions and the acts of reconciliation required will be different. The stories of trauma experienced by the Métis, the Sixties Scoop survivors, children in care, non-status Indians and those off-reserve remain largely unknown. They also require unique solutions and acts of reconciliation.

Yet Canada continues to conflate all of the Indigenous peoples into one heavily stereotyped monolith. There are numerous traps in discussing Aboriginal peoples as if they were a relatively homogeneous entity with a common set of problems, with a uniform set of solutions. The pan-Indigenous approach championed by Bill C-29 has the ability to do a disservice to all Indigenous peoples. We shall see the outcome.

Colleagues, context is critical in legislation. We are responsible for asking ourselves, as parliamentarians, if we are going to be complacent in undertaking reconciliation for Métis and Inuit peoples through the same lens as that of First Nations.

In the book Unequal Relations: A Critical Introduction to Race, Ethnic, and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada by Augie Fleras, the author states:

The term “aboriginal” itself refers to the first or original or Indigenous occupants of this country. This status as first among equals provides First Nations with the credentials to press claims against the Canadian state for entitlement on the basis of inherent jurisdiction . . . . The term “first” can also be used in less flattering ways. Aboriginal peoples are “first” in those social areas that count least (unemployment, under-education, suicide, and morbidity rates) but last in realms that matter most. . . . They are also “first” in terms of total publicity — much of it reflecting a popular view of aboriginal peoples as “problem people” who “have problems” or “create problems” that cost or provoke. Some of this media exposure is sympathetic, but much reflects degrees of indifference or ignorance. Most coverage is inadequate to provide anything but a fleeting glimpse into changing realities. The circulation of misinformation is unfortunate.

The author continues:

The complex and difficult issues associated with the reconstruction process should never be underestimated. Aboriginal demands are organized around the principle of nationhood rather than social integration, and there is much to be gained by seeing Indigenous efforts toward reconstitution of the elements of their nationality through restoration of aboriginal communities and cultural values as well as self-determination and territorial reappropriation . . . .

As noted by Dave Courchene, a former president of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood, in 1970:

One hundred years of submission and servitude, of protectionism and paternalism have created psychological barriers for Indian people that are far more difficult to break down and conquer than the problems of economic and social poverty. . . .

Honourable senators, in conclusion, I would like to raise that there is an inaccuracy in the preamble of this bill that we would do well to rectify. Specifically, the opening line states:

Whereas, since time immemorial, Indigenous peoples have thrived on and managed and governed their Indigenous lands . . . .

We know that a pan-Indigenous approach to this wording implies that all three are incorporated into this statement. In reality, it was only the First Nations and Inuit peoples who have lived on these lands since time immemorial, since Métis were conceived between First Nations women and European men.

We can’t start this bill off with an untruth. As such, I am requesting that we correct this inaccuracy by changing the term “Indigenous peoples” to more accurately state, “First Nations and Inuit peoples.”

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: 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 the preamble, on page 1, by replacing line 1 with the following:

“Whereas, since time immemorial, First Nations and Inuit peo-”.

Thank you.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I want to first acknowledge that we’re on the unceded Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.

I want to thank Senator McCallum for her speech and her proposal. As a legislative body, we benefit from the lived experience our honourable friend brings to bear when we study bills that seek to advance reconciliation, as this one does.

“Reconciliation” is not just a bureaucratic buzzword. It’s about healing the real traumas experienced by — and inflicted by — real people. Many of us have survivors in our life who have shared their stories with us, and have helped us understand both the promise and the challenges of reconciliation. We are all fortunate to have a colleague in our chamber who can speak to us on these topics with the passion and perspective that comes from real, personal experience. Once again, I thank the senator for doing so.

I do have concerns, though, about the specifics of this amendment. As we have heard, it proposes to rephrase the opening line of the preamble. Currently, the preamble begins with this: “Whereas, since time immemorial, Indigenous peoples have thrived on and managed and governed their Indigenous lands . . . .” This amendment would replace “Indigenous peoples” with “First Nations and Inuit peoples.”

I understand the distinction that the amendment seeks to draw between First Nations and Inuit peoples, who were here long before the Europeans arrived, and the Métis Nation that developed after European arrival.

The various Indigenous peoples of Canada are distinct in many ways, including when it comes to our histories and origins. I agree completely that we should embrace these distinctions, achieving unity and solidarity not by suppressing them, but by celebrating them.

However, as a Métis person myself, it troubles me to think that we would begin this bill with a line that expressly omits the Métis Nation. The current wording is accurate — Indigenous peoples have been here since time immemorial — and I don’t see the need to change it.

Bill C-29 is landmark legislation. It is a significant milestone on the journey to reconciliation. It will create a national council for reconciliation that will, for years into the future, monitor, evaluate, educate and report about the state of reconciliation in Canada. This is vital work, colleagues.

Given the importance of the work this council will do, it’s no wonder that so much of the discussion about it has focused on inclusion. Naturally, with hundreds of Indigenous nations in Canada, the preamble can’t name each one, and it is impossible, unfortunately, for each nation to have its own dedicated representative on the council’s board.

But surely, at a minimum, colleagues, we can avoid specifically mentioning two of the three distinct Indigenous groups recognized by our Constitution, while excluding the third. I am sure this amendment is not meant to send the message that Métis people are somehow a lesser category, but I worry it would be received that way, regardless of the intent.

Métis people have fought hard for recognition and inclusion. It would be a shame to exclude us in the opening line of this critical bill. I, therefore, will be opposing this amendment.

I do, though, sincerely thank Senator McCallum for her contribution to this debate and her work in committee. It was valuable, and I will take this opportunity to thank everyone who has participated in the Senate study of this legislation. I think that we made it stronger, and increased the likelihood that the national council will be an effective body.

I look forward to seeing it get off the ground and start doing its work in a way that promotes reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in this country — and to promote love. I think we need more love in this country, and I think this council can do that. I want to thank you for your time, colleagues. Hiy hiy. Thank you.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: My question is for Senator LaBoucane-Benson. The French version of Bill C-29 uses the term “les Autochtones” when it states, “. . . que, depuis des temps immémoriaux, les Autochtones se sont épanouis sur leur territoire . . . .”

When we speak of “les Autochtones,” we are referring to Indigenous peoples as described in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Since 1982, we recognize that Indigenous peoples are “. . . Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples . . . .”

The English version of Bill C-29 states:

[English]

Whereas since time immemorial, Indigenous peoples have . . . .

[Translation]

Am I correct in thinking that, based on the definition of the expression “time immemorial,” or “temps immémoriaux” in French, if we examine the meaning of these expressions in both English and French, they refer to something that goes back so far as to be beyond memory?

[English]

In English, they define it as “originating in the distant past; very old.”

[Translation]

They don’t refer to a specific time in human history.

Is it your understanding that defining “time immemorial” in general terms in French or in English does not place the arrival of a specific people at a particular time, either before or after another?

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Hon. Rebecca Patterson: Senator, will you take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

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

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