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

(e) one director who may only be elected after having been nominated by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.”;

(c) by replacing line 12 with the following:

“in paragraphs (1)(a) to (e), the remaining directors may”.

Thank you.

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.

I think that NWAC deserves to be there with the other guaranteed seats. What I’m saying is that I also believe that CAP is a national organization that has been recognized in a number of ways, including by receiving funding. Our colleague Senator Brazeau came to the committee and gave us a very good testimony on the history and work of CAP. He himself led the organization.

I think there are so many organizations across the country. Senator, I know you work tirelessly, but I think that not everybody will have worked with every single organization. I just stand by the position that I’m taking because of what we heard at committee, including from Senator Brazeau.

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.

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.

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?

I see the organizations as being distinct and different. CAP, on its own merit, has done extensive work over the past 50 years. Based on the testimony that was heard, the fact that both CAP and the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC, were included in the other place but the government removed one and not the other, the criteria for that is not clear to us. Based on what happened, the history of this bill, the work that CAP has done over the past 50 years and on their merit, that’s what I believe. I’m not talking about removing anyone else but adding a guaranteed seat to a national organization that has been in existence for decades.

Would the senator take another question?

Yes.

It is all about representation. If I understand correctly, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which is a very good organization that does a lot of work to promote the cause of Indigenous people, is not necessarily an elected organization.

What your amendment is proposing is to formally reserve a seat on the council for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Why that organization and not some other national organization? Would it not be appropriate for us to instead set out criteria for selecting an organization? People may or may not be members of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. If I were an Indigenous person who was not a member of that organization, I might not feel as though it could speak on my behalf.

I have a problem with arbitrarily granting this organization a seat on the council.

I don’t see it as arbitrary. Only NWAC and CAP were included to have a guaranteed seat in the House. This is the history of the bill and what happened in the other place.

There are so many organizations. I’m not taking away from any of the others as to what they do and how important they are, but CAP is a national organization that has done a lot of work and it was accepted by the committee in the other place. That’s why I’m focusing on CAP and no other groups, which I could have. I don’t know how I would choose because there are so many that do such good work.

I think this will be the challenge for the council, even after we adopt this bill, namely, what will the makeup of the board be? I chose CAP specifically because of what happened in the other place.

Would the senator take another question, please?

Yes.

Thank you. I am curious as to where the hundreds of thousands of members come from with CAP. My experience with CAP was when I first became a senator, I asked them to come and sit with me and talk to me about their membership. They did. The question that I had was, “Who are your members and where are they?” The answer I got was, “I don’t know.”

I’m curious to know where that 850,000 comes from because, as a Métis, they don’t represent me and they don’t represent any of my family or anybody I know.

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.

If you’re taking this information from the website and you didn’t directly say, “Where do those members come from,” then you don’t know that answer, do you?

I don’t know that.

Thank you.

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?

I don’t agree that we should not include CAP. That’s why I’ve moved this amendment. As you said, there are the three rights-holding organizations: the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Métis National Council, and the Native Women’s Association of Canada, which is different, but they are included and they are deserving. I feel the same way about CAP. We can agree to disagree, but I’m explaining why I believe that CAP shouldn’t have been removed and should have a guaranteed seat.

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?

Yes, exactly. There are five national organizations. The government kept the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC, but removed CAP, and it’s not clear what criteria they were using. That inconsistency was noted. As I said earlier, based on the testimony that we heard and the history of this bill, I believe that CAP should be included.

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?

Yes, the new minister, Minister Anandasangaree, did appear. When I asked the question regarding CAP and we were talking about the inclusion or the exclusion, he was new to the file, so he didn’t specifically talk about the criteria. To me, it’s still unclear. I believe that CAP should be included.

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.

Thank you. You are quite the orator. I always appreciate hearing from you. It always makes sense when it comes from you; I’m saying that sincerely. I know that we sat next to each other at that committee, and struggled back and forth, and shared a lot of ups and downs.

I appreciated that in committee, you did not try to remove the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC — which would be one move to make it a more even playing field. I’m glad we didn’t do that at committee, and would not promote that.

You spoke just now about respect. It’s respect that I’m concerned about as well. I have a fear that if this body, this chamber, imposes a decision, which includes the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP — which, in my opinion, has misrepresented itself, and is not on the same level as those three national Indigenous organizations that represent people who have Indigenous rights here in Canada — we would be showing disrespect to those three national rights-representing organizations.

Do you share a concern about us reintroducing CAP as a member of the board of this very important national council for reconciliation, as well as what that might do to how those three organizations would feel regarding how we respect them?

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.

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?

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.

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.

I would like to ask a question if the senator will take one.

Thank you very much. During the committee’s work, did any members — CAP is purporting to represent whomever they represent — but the people who are represented, did they email? Usually in these situations, we get advocacy from people who are part of the organization. So did any of that happen? Were there any emails or letters that committee members or you received that said, “Hey, I’m part of that organization, and they do represent me.” Was there any of that at all?

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.