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.

Senator, I don’t disagree with your rendition of history at all. I do disagree that in the preamble it says “Indigenous peoples.” It doesn’t say “Métis.”

Truly, every law in Canada is written in the language of the colonizer. “Indigenous” is not a Cree word. The Cree people don’t call themselves “Cree people.” The Métis people don’t necessarily call themselves “Métis people” in Michif, and yet here we are in the language of the colonizer, writing a bill that is talking about reconciliation.

I think the word “Indigenous” meets the standard, and is good enough in this bill at the beginning because it is inclusive. It doesn’t leave people out unintentionally, but I don’t disagree with the history that you are putting forward.

I thank you for that. If this bill were perfect, it would name the actual nations that were here, and it’s not. Using inclusive language would help Métis people understand that we acknowledge that they have traumas as well, that they have suffered as well, that they went to day schools and some residential schools, that they experienced systemic racism, and that they have lived their lives in a country that has seen them as less than — and that is why I am advocating for inclusive language.

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:

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

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?

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

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?

Thank you, senator. I’m sure my colleagues would all agree that I am not the person to address the translation issues between French and English.

But I take your point. If I understand, what you are saying is “time immemorial” as it’s expressed in French and English may mean different things. No?

May I clarify my question? Obviously, my colleague didn’t understand my question as I worded it.

Certainly.

In both French and English, the word “immemorial” refers to a time in the distant past of human history, without necessarily giving a specific date for the arrival of the Inuit, the arrival of the Indians, the arrival of the Métis, according to the terms used in section 35 of the Constitution Act. These are not my preferred terms, but I’m using the ones we have. Is that how you understand this?

Yes, I do agree with you. That is my understanding.

Senator, will you take a question?

Of course.

Thank you. I’m not Indigenous; I am not Métis, First Nation or Inuit. I appreciate everything that’s been said so that we can understand the history and what “time immemorial” really means.

My question revolves around Métis identity. “Time immemorial,” based on Senator McCallum’s explanation, means “from the beginning into the future”; it’s a continuum — a continuous line. Part of a Métis person comes from settlers and another part comes from an Indigenous culture.

My question to you, as a Métis person, is this: If the language is not inclusive, would Métis people feel that part of them has been denied?

Thank you for that question. I do not speak on behalf of all Métis people, and I think my honourable colleague said that she had conversations — which I wasn’t a part of — and that that would not be the case.

As a Métis person, I also want to say that the understanding of Métis as mixed blood is a way of thinking about Métis people that is a bit uncomfortable. Métis people are a cultural construct of a group of people who created their own culture, which originated in the Red River. That culture is very specific, and, yes, it was a combination of different things, but it evolved to be something of its own.

As a Métis person, I want to put forward that being inclusive and acknowledging that Métis people have had a traumatic history is important, and using inclusive language would be helpful.

I want to say that I understand what Senator McCallum is saying; however, I do take the point with the Métis aspect of that. I think that Senator LaBoucane-Benson and Senator Dupuis covered some of the points I wanted to make, but I want to say that not all Indigenous peoples have been here since time immemorial. Métis are a post-contact Indigenous nation going back close to 400 years or more. They were born from the unions of European fur traders and First Nations women of the 17th century.

As we know, and as was mentioned, the constitutional definition of “Aboriginal people” — or “Indigenous people,” if you prefer — refers to First Nations, Métis and Inuit.

Thank you.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

I see two senators rising. Is there an agreement on a bell?

The vote will be deferred until tomorrow at 5:30 p.m.