Indigenous Peoples
Motion in Amendment
November 21, 2024
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended:
1.by deleting the word “and” at the end of the first paragraph and adding the following new paragraph immediately after it:
“That the committee invite the Honourable Randy Boissonnault, P.C., M.P., to appear as the first witness in relation to this study; and”; and
2.by substituting the words “December 31, 2023” with the words “June 15, 2025”.
In order to give the committee an opportunity for a new benchmark and date to be able to carry out this important work, I hope, honourable colleagues, that there will be overwhelming support for doing the right thing and understanding that when it comes to egregious behaviour, it does not matter who carries it out, even if it’s the Prime Minister who has summoned you to the Senate of Canada. We need to hold them and their ministers to account.
Thank you, colleagues.
I am thrilled, honourable senator, that there is any interest in this chamber for this study. I have to say, maybe on behalf of some other Indigenous senators, that this is great news.
Having spoken with Mr. Boissonnault on several occasions, I know the story, and I do not think that you will get the witness testimony that you are thinking of, but that is fine, if we do decide to call him.
I’m saddened that you have added that clause to this very important motion by Senator McCallum, and now we will be voting on whether Randy Boissonnault should be called rather than on the larger case of “pretendians” and the effect on Indigenous people, because I think it is vast.
My question to you is this: Do you think our time is best spent in calling somebody who may or may not be a “pretendian” and grilling that person, or do you think our time would be better spent calling all the Indigenous experts from across the country who really understand the issue? Senator McCallum began that in her speech about the problem, what it looks like and how we can address it. Do you think our time would be better spent calling those people or grilling someone who may or may not be a “pretendian” and may not have a story that is going to inform the discussion?
For someone who may or may not be a “pretendian,” he was asked to step down from the cabinet. Obviously, wherever there is smoke, there is fire. That is number one. Number two, with all due respect, I would like to take the word of the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate to the effect that you spoke to him and you can reassure us at that there is not much there, but I would rather have the work of this institution to come to that determination.
Second of all, all I’m asking is for Mr. Boissonnault to take up one panel, one hour, before the senators of the Parliament of Canada to explain his behaviour. It does not impede the committee from calling in all the experts under the sun and carrying out a robust long-term analysis and study — by no means. Mr. Boissonnault will have an hour before Canadians with a non-partisan, strong institution, answering robust questions, and, after that, the committee, of course, has the liberty to call in many witnesses. I do not think that one precludes the other.
Also, to try to diminish a minister of the Crown who has clearly, over the past few days and weeks, exhibited behaviour that is unbecoming of a minister of the Crown by brushing it off and saying, “Well, you know, the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate had a chat with him. Colleagues, rest assured there is nothing there. All of these articles in the media are a figment of your imagination. The fact that the minister was asked to step aside by the Prime Minister is a figment of your imagination.”—
This is the kind of behaviour where we sweep things under the rug and that never allow this country to get to the bottom of facts and things, and we diminish the view that Canadians have of their institution and parliamentarians when we engage in that sort of behaviour.
I did not say that he was or he wasn’t. I’m not saying take my word for anything. My question to you was: Where is our time better spent? Asking somebody who may or may not be and what his individual story is or is it better spent talking to people who actually understand the issue? I really want to talk about the issue.
You asked the same question, you made the same reference and the answer still stands.
