Senator LaBoucane-Benson: 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?

[Translation]

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]