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?

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?

The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Certainly.

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Is there an agreement on a bell?

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

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, entitled The subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 20 and 36 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 2, 2023.

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

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Is there an agreement on a bell?

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

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, entitled The subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 20 and 36 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 2, 2023.

Hon. Marty Klyne: 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.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, for a number of months now, we have been hearing the calling of these different committee reports that deal with a budget bill that we have passed in this chamber.

I find it quite unusual and quite unfortunate, but I guess that today it also provides me with the ability to speak on this particular report with respect to the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

Now, you will understand that I am trying to recall as many items in that budget bill that I can. And, of course, for some other reason, I’m also on my feet to stop this game that is going on by playing it. Some of you who are playing the game will understand what I’m doing.

Colleagues, it seems to me that the budget bill that we voted on and this particular report — we didn’t vote on it per se because a portion of the budget bill was sent to this committee, but we did vote on the entire budget and the vote was agreed to therefore the budget bill was passed.

Regarding the particular elements contained in the bill that was sent to the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, I would presume that some of that would touch on how the public policy of our nation tries to deal with the carbon emissions that we have and with the Paris Agreement that our country and all our provinces have agreed to. Also, for your information, as of July 1 of this year, all four Atlantic provinces have embarked on the federal policy to reduce carbon emissions.

Honourable colleagues, that was quite a move for the Atlantic provinces because New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador created their own provincial emissions system. The four premiers, who were all in agreement, probably saw that their provincial system was maybe not sustainable in meeting the 2030 emissions targets that they had agreed to or maybe, for political reasons, they decided, “Let’s just dump this on the federal government.”

That is the situation with respect to the issue of the environment in the budget, and the provinces — and I will speak, in particular, for New Brunswick — once they dumped their emissions targets and carbon pricing policy to the federal government as of July 1, now, all of a sudden, they want to get out of the agreement. Okay. So it’s become a political football that New Brunswickers are beginning to be quite tired of.

That being said, it doesn’t eliminate the fact that we have a national policy — and, yes, it’s true that Quebec has their own system which seems to be quite comparable to the federal one. The Province of B.C. — quite a number of years ago, in 2008; they were way ahead of the curve on that one — created a provincial public policy that is also mirrored in the current federal government policy.

Now, colleagues, you will say, “Why, all of a sudden, Pierrette, are you telling us all this?” I am telling you all of this because of the discussion we were having last week. On Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, I did 14 hours of research daily. So today I am able to stand on my feet and talk to you about public policy with respect to the environment that was included in the last budget and in the report that we have before us.

It is also quite interesting that, for instance, because this transfer from the province to the federal policy as of July 1 of this year — which is also applicable to the other three Atlantic provinces — our citizens are not really aware of how the federal tax rebate works. So during the weekend — and this is regarding the policy on the environment and the last budget — I had to inform the citizens of my area that I was in contact with about certain provisions.

I must say it was probably one of the most interesting weekends that I have had for a long time. You see, I have been representing, in particular, these farming communities for 35 years. I know them. They know me. When I was explaining to them what was in the budget with respect to the environment and the scheme that they were part of since July 1, they were quite astonished because, for the last several years, they were being told that the carbon tax was a complete tax grab. They were never informed.

You see, honourable senators, that’s the difference between myth and facts. It’s important to get the facts on paper. They were never informed that, in the federal scheme, they would be getting a rebate currently at the rate of $1.73 for every $1,000 of their entire farming income. Wow. Because they never understood that. And nowhere, at any time, did any farmers organization that they were consulting with ever tell them that fact.

I say shame. Shame. We — in this place, at least — have to be honest with our citizens, and they have to be honest and upfront with us.

So, on Friday, I put forth quite a number of policies and challenges that they had. I asked them to go back to their accountants, go back to how they operate and tell me if they are better off financially to increase their investment in their operation by the current system under which they were not told about the refundable tax credit or about a new proposed exemption.

Colleagues, in my area, 99% of farming production is potatoes. You can ask Senator Mockler, and he will confirm that. It is the same situation in P.E.I.: 99% of the farming activities in P.E.I. are potato-based.

There is no use in the farming communities of Atlantic Canada for natural gas because we have no access.

Colleagues, that brings us back to the fundamental issues of, as I said earlier, providing our constituencies with the real facts in order for them to really respond with how the facts would impact them.

And that is just the farming community. It’s the same situation in regard to the other scheme that addresses us as consumers. It’s completely different because I — like you and our citizens — as a consumer, when we file our income tax, nowhere are we able to take all our operating expenses as a deduction. We are not a business. Therefore, there are two different schemes.

Unfortunately, maybe it was not clear in the budget and in this particular committee report, so I am taking this opportunity to maybe clarify this entire situation.

At the end of the day, the policy of the government is completely different in regard to me as an individual, the farming community as an economic sector, transformation industries like logging or others; it’s completely different in regard to carbon policy charges. When we analyze and research — and we do have a responsibility to research — if we are not capable from the outset to make that distinction —

Colleagues, I have so much more to say. Can I have five more minutes?