Hon. Michèle Audette: I want to thank my two colleagues for speaking out on a subject, on a part of Canada’s history, that is complex but that is still very palpable for most Indigenous peoples.

I am proud to be half Innu and half Quebecer. I feel it every day. My son is one of the Gitxsan people, neighbours to the Haida. A spiritual grandmother, Bernie William Poitras, accompanied me during the national inquiry. She comes from that great nation. She is a gentle warrior from a family line that goes back thousands of years, a matriarch, and also a hereditary chief.

Please understand that my position — I’m going to be gentle and loving about it — is to remind us collectively that reconciliation is a truth that only we, Indigenous peoples, can keep. Through our oral tradition, we have been sharing it for decades, for centuries. I have to remind us collectively how important it is important to sign those agreements. The right to self-determination is the first thing I had when I arrived in this chamber. I had a medallion made from caribou hide with the words “education, justice, right to self-government” written on it. That is very important.

At the same time, let’s remember that, in this very space, colonialism caused us harm, especially to Indigenous women. After marrying the most handsome Quebecer, my mother was expelled from her territory. The same thing goes for languages, and so on. These are all things that we learn over time.

February is the month of love, but for families that have lost a loved one, it’s a time of reflection. February is for those who have lost a sister, a brother, a mother, another loved one. Last February, I was visiting these matriarchs in their northern British Columbia territory. They said to me, “This bill will hurt us, because we were not listened to.” In my own words, I told them that, even so, 50 years had passed and we needed to move forward, even if this isn’t perfect, even if this isn’t what we would have hoped for as a people, as a society or as a country. How could they make their voices heard? They tried to make their voices heard in various forums here in the Senate, but people didn’t hear them. For all sorts of reasons, people didn’t hear them. I’m here to speak for them today. Fifty years of colonialism and debate for the great and beautiful Haida people, and we finally have something.

Let’s not forget that these women have 12,000 years’ worth of rights, rules, protocols and pride for their people. I’ve often been told by government members I’ve met here, “yes, but that’s between you. You have to figure it out.” We aren’t the ones who imposed colonial laws on ourselves.

I’m sure you can appreciate why I plan to abstain, but in your heart of hearts, based on your values and your beliefs, if you want to support this initiative, that’s up to you, and that’s fine. I’m not asking you to side with me on this, but please understand that the next nations that testify before our committees, so that we can pass bills with them to ensure their full autonomy . . . Always remember that there are silent voices that must be heard. That is our responsibility.

[English]

There are so many voices that we know — we think we do good, and I’m one of them, of course; I think I did my due diligence. Within their own nation, same nation, there’s probably a group of voices that we need to bring here during committee. So I hope you understand my abstention — that there are voices that weren’t heard. The next bill or the next — even my nation, I can’t wait for them to come here, and I’ll ask them the same question: What about the Indigenous women? Where are they? Are they involved? Did they dream in that vision that you have and are presenting to us as senators; did they co-build with you this piece of legislation or this vision?

We have that due diligence. We have that responsibility. I say thank you to all people here who do open their minds and hearts to this, but let’s also remind ourselves that there are so many of us who are not able to come and shake or speak or share the truth. Thank you.

Hon. Michèle Audette: Would the honourable senator take a question?

Senator Yussuff: Yes.

Hon. Michèle Audette: 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.

Hon. Michèle Audette: Thank you, honourable senators.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu-aimun.]

I also want to thank the Anishinaabe people. Thank you for welcoming me on your land every day. I hope that will continue for a long time as I continue working as a senator.

Thank you also to my fellow senators.

Honourable senators, I’m rising today to discuss and share some thoughts with you about Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

I really like history, so before I get into the crux of the matter, I think it’s important to review what has been done here in this chamber, what you did long before some of us arrived in the Senate.

As you may have heard when I gave my maiden speech, I really like talking about beading, portaging, the path of healing and so on.

Every bead that we leave is precious and helps us along the path of healing and reconciliation, but also along the path to building a new relationship and maintaining the existing one, a relationship that is, of course, built on respect, partnership and the recognition of rights.

In 2007, we were all very animated. For those who remember, our leaders, members of our families and people who were affected by residential schools worked very hard to reach a settlement on residential schools to provide reparations. This settlement contained several provisions, including the one to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Obviously there was talk of making an apology. I want to thank the leaders, the people of that time for their courage and their determination, who allow us today to pick up where they left off, to start over and move forward in partnership.

In June 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized to Indigenous peoples. For many of us, for me too, this apology was important. It was more than symbolic. It put words to our pain and to much of our suffering.

In his message, which I encourage you to reread, Prime Minister Harper apologized to the First Nations, the Métis and the Inuit for those who experienced the effects of residential schools or suffered at the residential schools.

This was part of his message:

The government now recognizes that the absence of an apology has been an impediment to healing and reconciliation. Therefore, on behalf of the government of Canada and all Canadians, I stand before you, in this chamber so vital, so central to our existence as a country, to apologize to aboriginal peoples for the role the government of Canada played in the Indian residential schools system.

In 2015, a man we knew and worked with, our former colleague, the Honourable Murray Sinclair, together with former commissioners Wilson Littlechild and Marie Wilson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, submitted and made public their final report. Many of us were there. I was there. We remember.

During a 2018 study by the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, Marie Wilson, a former commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, explained the following:

It was the largest substantive consultation of indigenous people on any subject in the history of our country, Canada’s 130-year history of forced residential schooling for indigenous children. We based our 10-volume findings on almost 300 days of public hearings in every region of the country, from coast to coast to coast. We based our findings on dozens of commissioned research reports, together with an exhaustive reference of hundreds of documented sources.

She added the following:

Most compellingly and most centrally, we based our findings on almost 7,000 recorded statements from former students who spent their childhoods in the more than 150 church-run, government-sponsored institutions known as residential schools. They were isolated from traditional lands and cultural groundings and deprived of kinship ties and parental devotion, protection and love.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, after receiving the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, stated the following:

Today, on behalf of the Government of Canada, I have the honour of accepting the Commission’s Final Report. It is my deepest hope that this report and its findings will help heal some of the pain caused by the Indian residential school system and begin to restore the trust lost so long ago.

On June 3, 2021, the Senate passed Bill C-5, to create the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. During the legislative process leading up to Royal Assent of the bill, which responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action 80, our colleague Senator Francis said the following:

Honourable senators, the national day for truth and reconciliation is but one step. However, it is the sum of all our individual and collective actions, of all the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that, when fully implemented, will create our new normal. If we follow this path, we will continue to move forward as a country in a positive direction.

Colleagues, this chamber also passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action 43 and 44.

Of course, the Senate also followed suit with an Act to amend the Citizenship Act, which responded to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action 94.

Some things have happened, and it’s important for me to talk about them.

[English]

It has been nearly eight years since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada released its final report and the 94 Calls to Action. These Calls to Action present a pathway as well as a road map for all levels of government, no matter where we are or where we live. It could be municipal, provincial or territorial government. It could be the education sector, private sector or the health sector. It is everywhere in this country. We’re all responsible for doing something.

For me, it’s also very important to remind ourselves that it’s to ensure that Indigenous people are respected, valued and, of course, included for today, tomorrow and the next generation to come.

[Translation]

That is what Bill C-29 seeks to achieve by establishing a national council for reconciliation. This is one more positive step forward, one more thing Canada can do to make major strides along the shared path of reconciliation.

Bill C-29 acts on Calls to Action 53 to 56 in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It will create a national council responsible for monitoring progress on reconciliation in Canada, publishing reports and making related recommendations.

In addition, Bill C-29 will enable the conduct of research in accordance with a multi-year plan. Research is important; data is important. Integrating Indigenous and western knowledge and thinking is crucial to advancing reconciliation in the hope of developing new approaches and new programs to support understanding among people outside the government apparatus.

Marie Wilson, a former TRC commissioner recently testified before the committee during its study of the bill. She reminded us of the following:

We are all aware, I hope, that we have lost more than half of the survivors who were alive at that time. All these many years later, we are still not able to answer questions about whether things are getting better or worse. What are the inspirational things we can learn from? What are the discouraging and deteriorating things that we need to put a sharper lens and attention on? So the national council, as we said at the time, was essential.

[English]

The journey of this bill has been very long. Remember, when I started as sponsor of this bill, as we say in English, or to embrace it, as I would say in my own words, I was with a group, and now I wear another pair of moccasins, but my passion, feelings and emotions are the same. We have to remember that the people who were involved before us who worked on this are key people. I would say thank you, of course, to the people who provided their knowledge, passion or expertise, which is the interim board and the transitional committee. Remember this: They were and today are still independent and Indigenous-led — we’ve been asking for this — who were key in this process. I want to say thank you for all your hard work.

[Translation]

Almost a year ago, on December 1, 2022, this bill was passed unanimously in the House of Commons. I want to thank all the political party representatives and everyone involved for their hard work on this bill in committee. Thank you.

I’d also like to thank my colleagues, the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, who took the time to listen to the 52 witnesses who agreed to come and see us and share their concerns, vision or interest in taking the matter further, and who made it possible for the bill to move forward. It took many hours of consideration, not to mention all the briefs and written responses that the committee received. As you will remember, the task was difficult, but we made it through and I’m confident. Thank you to everyone who came and shared, once again, their truth with us.

Their testimony allowed us to make observations and engage in constructive discussions among colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples and, of course, to propose ways of strengthening the bill.

[English]

Following Royal Assent, the first step for establishing the national council for reconciliation, of course, will be to establish its board of directors, which will be composed of between 9 and 13 people who have knowledge of and experience with Indigenous people and the work of the council. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the transitional committee would jointly select the first circle of people. It would form the first board of directors with a composition of no less than two thirds being Indigenous people — a place where it was very sensitive, and I think it’s important that I say this in French, because in French it will be more comfortable.

[Translation]

Rights-holding organizations, what does that mean for an Innu woman, a woman from Quebec? I celebrate both my cultures.

For example, I’m a member of the Uashat mak Mani-utenam community, and my band council if we use the jargon of the Indian Act — Our chief will participate if he wishes, whether I vote for that person or not. It is our form of governance, which I completely respect, regardless of where a person lives, regardless of the place of residence. Our elected members can participate in the assembly of chiefs of Quebec and Labrador, which can also participate at our discretion — we, the elected members of the community, have that power — at the assembly of chiefs.

That’s what it means when we talk about rights-holding organizations.

We give a mandate, as in the democracy of Canada, where it is possible to belong to a political party or a social movement; it is your individual right. It is very important when we talk about these organizations. They have been very sensitive to our approach to organizing or proposing this board of directors.

As a result of this sensitivity, of course, there will be exchanges to ensure that the Inuit, the Métis and the First Nations members of these political rights-holding organizations can appoint people to sit on the board of directors.

We also got a lot of comments and had many conversations about making sure that men, women, young people, older people, people who live in the North, people with expertise, residential school survivors and second-generation survivors are all represented.

When we look at the provision of the bill on who can be or become a member, we find these people. They are there. Of course, they’re also there to represent those who speak French as a first or second language. French is the first language for some Indigenous nations in Quebec. We must therefore make sure that there is a place for those people and for those who want to keep their Indigenous language. This will be an important exercise for the board of directors, which will have to ensure that this mosaic and this expertise from the various territories and communities have a place in this big circle.

Those who were there may remember Mr. Case, who is part of the transitional committee. He was wearing a beaded vest. I want to paraphrase what he said, which was very important.

He told us that we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In other words, we need to understand that when we start something, it’s not always perfect, but it’s still fundamental and important.

Once the board of directors has been chosen, of course, the whole technical aspect will be paramount in incorporating this organization under the law governing non-profit organizations. Subsequent to that, the board will be able to obtain non-profit status, which will also give it legal status so it can obtain contracts. Most of us have worked in this kind of non-profit organization. The organization can have its own name, sign contracts and, most importantly in this case, it is not part of the government apparatus.

Ensuring that the organization plays an independent role was a very important Call to Action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. For me and those who followed the work, the importance of independence must be emphasized once again.

[English]

In their testimony, witnesses raised concerns over funding — the lack of funding or concerns about the annual funding for the council in Bill C-29. That is an important point that I want to raise. We were concerned about this as members of the Indigenous Peoples Committee and want to make sure that is also in the report as an observation.

I don’t think I was there during our study on the day the minister came and that question was raised.

I will go through what Minister Anandasangaree said about the funding.

[Translation]

Budget 2019 included $125.6 million to support the establishment and operation of this council, including initial establishment funding of $1.5 million in the first year and a $125-million operating endowment fund. It is enshrined in legislation in addition to being included in Budget 2019.

It’s obviously impossible to know what the costs are in the first year. We have to rely on experts who have administered much larger funds than these $126 million for Indigenous peoples. This trust is important, of course.

I thank my colleagues for the questions they asked when the minister appeared. Minister Anandasangaree committed to provide additional funding if the council requested it. This is what he said:

In this particular case, one of the key recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is that this council be independent. It would be independent of government, which means there is no ongoing dependency on government. The initial $125 million is a significant investment into an endowment that will enable the council to operate from a starting point in a robust way. Now, as we develop the council and as the council comes up with an action plan and figures out the scope of the work and budgetary requirements, we need to be open to definitely increasing that. I, for one — and I can assure you our government — will respond when that call is there. As a starting point, $125 million is a significant amount of money, you will agree, that will get this started. As the work plan is developed and implemented, we will certainly be open to additional conversations, and my personal commitment would be to support additional funding when required.

Then, we heard from representatives of political organizations. Senators will recall that last spring, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, ITK, raised a number of issues concerning rights-holding organizations already working towards reconciliation and preserving the integrity of existing bilateral mechanisms. I thank my colleague Senator Patterson for working with those organizations and the government to propose amendments. Nakurmiik, thank you for the work you have done.

In my beautiful little office, members of the transitional committee and political staff capitalized on our relationship to discuss how to ensure that this council doesn’t simply serve as a box to be checked off when government decides to consult an Indigenous organization. No, this shouldn’t overshadow the important work being done with governments, including the federal government. That is important. Thank you for the proposed amendments to this effect.

[English]

That said, the amendment adopted by the Indigenous Peoples Committee recognized that the council will not take the place of the existing nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown or government-to-government relationships. That’s very important. This council will be entirely different than the permanent bilateral mechanism and the relationship already in place. It will not be an agent of the Government of Canada. That’s very important.

It will be a non-political body led by strong Indigenous leadership which operates independently of government and promotes and monitors progress towards reconciliation.

Within three months after the end of each fiscal year, the council must submit an annual report to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on the state of reconciliation and its recommendations. Within 60 days of the release of this report, the Prime Minister must, on behalf of the Government of Canada, respond to the report by publishing an annual report on the state of Indigenous people that outlines the Government of Canada’s plans for advancing reconciliation.

[Translation]

What we still need to know is how the council will get the information it needs to do its job and fulfill its mandate. Bill C-29 provides clear direction in that regard. Under the bill, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations must, in collaboration with the national council, develop a protocol respecting the disclosure of information by the Government of Canada to the council. Bill C-29 provides for the development of such a protocol within six months after the council is incorporated.

Such a protocol will make it possible to coordinate and streamline the disclosure of information from several federal departments while, of course, respecting the provisions of the Privacy Act. There are precedents in Quebec. Once laws and protocols are in place, then many people will finally be able to get on the path to healing. That is another subject.

If the council has an interest in information held by a province or territory, it will have the ability and the latitude to negotiate other agreements.

Honourable senators, our responsibility is to go a little further, to take another step to ensure that we can celebrate, react to or learn from what is being done or what should be done. The independence of this council is a fundamental principle. It is very important.

When we were examining this bill, Minister Anandasangaree reminded us that it is important for his government that the council be independent.

In conclusion, honourable senators, there are people who leave an impression on us sometimes. There are people who touch us, but there are also those whom we love. I remember that man, Jay Launière-Mathias, who participated in a march last year from Mashteuiatsh to Quebec City to meet the pope. He gently reminded us to focus on what is important: supporting the survivors of residential schools.

I was also touched by the words of our colleague and friend Senator Greenwood, who said, and I quote:

Sometimes the purpose is already there. The purpose is that we are lifting up the survivors and the gift that they gave us with their stories.

[English]

Colonization is interwoven into this country’s social, economic, political and cultural fabrics. Untangling it and repairing the wrongs caused by its legacy won’t be an easy path, but we need to do it and we need to acknowledge that many of us have already started that.

As we debate this legislation before us today, I urge — with love, of course — my colleagues to maintain their focus on the clear path in front of us: advancing reconciliation.

This bill is an important step along this journey. It responds directly to four Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It also commits Canada, which is very important, to taking meaningful action year over year — not only in one year but year over year — on initiatives that bring us further along in our journey of reconciliation.

We have an opportunity here through this legislation to fulfill a vision and make good on a significant part here in this chamber but also, of course, across Canada, across this big place, Turtle Island, the place where I live.

But creating this national council for reconciliation is overdue. It will also bring more and more people to read or embrace the report that comes every year, even the national political organizations. They might use it or add something, or they might say, “No, not this time,” but that’s normal. In my world, we’re not all the same, and that’s what makes us special and powerful.

[Translation]

I want to once again quote Mr. Case from the transitional committee. Some of you might have seen the beadwork on his vest. This is what he said:

I’m a pretty good bead worker.

As a beader myself, I can say that he’s amazing.

He continued:

Do I think this vest is perfect? Absolutely not. To you, sure, but I can see that there are still things that I would change about it. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not a beautiful vest and that it should not go out into the world and do some nice work.

I will end with a personal note. When trying to figure out the impact that all of this could have and which amendments could be made, we turn to those we love and ask, “Mom, am I in a good place with this bill?”

I want to tell you about Nishapet, a woman who was born in the woods. She has never been to a hospital. She was born in the woods and is among those who almost lost their lives due to the great famines that our people have endured on our land of Nitassinan. Her mother, a nomad, told her, “Nishapet, you must go to school. You must receive an education. You will be the only educated member of our family.”

She was talking about being educated at residential school. I’m sharing the story of my mother-in-law, who is 82 years old. Living in a residential school cut her off from everything she knew, affecting the integrity and dignity of this Innu woman, but also affecting her relationships with her sons, with her children.

The same is true of my mother, Evelyne. She was told, “You are going to school. You’re going to go and you will stay there.” Then, like thousands of other people, they were subjected to abuse and certain situations.

However, during the Pope’s visit last year, I was with them every day, and I told them that I heard some people say, “I’m not interested in any apologies,” while others were saying, “Finally, I’m hearing something meaningful.”

At the end of the visit, these two women said to me, “Why does he have to be the only one to apologize? Why is Canada not putting a program in place?”

I told them, “Yes, lots of things are happening, mom.” Anyway, the point is, last September 30, we passed legislation on this subject. We got a society and governments to rally around a bill that is now part of our culture in Canada. It will bring about action, education and empowerment. Go to a mall, go anywhere and you’ll see people who aren’t of Indigenous or Inuit or Métis origin proudly wearing orange shirts. Education about this is happening.

Then the two women said to me, “It’s good to see people walking with us. It should have started long ago, but you can thank them.”

Little things like that are what make me realize that coming here every day is worth it because there are good people. We don’t always agree, but for some things, we’re the ones who have to spread this message on behalf of the women and men who experienced these horrific things. Like me, they are very hopeful. I’m a very optimistic person. I wasn’t always this optimistic, but as I’ve aged, I’ve gained some wisdom.

I’m an optimistic person, despite the multi-generational or intergenerational trauma. I have hope and determination.

Just imagine if we had the kind of collaborative, coordinated approach across the country that many people have taken within their communities by creating wonderful initiatives to bring people together and get to know one another, to take action or work together for reconciliation.

That is how I see this national council. It could help us to take another step forward and to be better. We have the right to be better.

In closing, I want to say that I left you a little bead during my maiden speech in this chamber. I left you another one today, and it is up to you whether to pick it up, take it or just look at it. I will respect your choice, but it will respond to some of the Calls to Action, and we should give ourselves a gift.

[English]

We need to do more, we need to go further, and we need to build this together. I hope you will support this bill. To my mom and to my mother-in-law, thank you.

Senator Audette: Thank you very much. If the choice of words hurt you, I’m sorry. If the words I used for quotes from a former commissioner hurt you, I’m sorry. However, for many people in my family, and for me as I participated alongside them, when we were asked if the consultation was clear and precise, I might reply that we were asked if we had any recommendations or suggestions.

I suppose it depends on the region, but there will never be enough dialogue. We can do away with the term “consultations.” I will heed your message, however, because it’s important. You are among those who were subjected to these traumas. I’m so sorry. I’ll be careful.

Nevertheless, I want to honour those who asked us to do more. Maybe we can choose better words together so we can get more done together.

[English]

Senator Audette: Yes.

[English]

Hon. Michèle Audette: Honourable senators, I’d like the vote to be deferred to the next sitting of the Senate.

Hon. Michèle Audette moved third reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, as amended.

(On motion of Senator Audette, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Michèle Audette: Hello everyone, tshinashkumitin.

Colleagues, I rise today to honour the memory of the late Joyce Echaquan, who left us three years ago. This Atikamekw woman, a mother, died under inhumane, abject conditions amid a barrage of racist, discriminatory and unacceptable slurs. Even the horrific video that made its way around the world in seconds proves it.

On September 28, 2020, the fate of our gentle warrior, Joyce Echaquan, could have taken a different turn. Had we done things differently, she might still be with us today.

In her report, coroner Géhane Kamel wrote that racism or discrimination may have played a part in her death. The coroner is calling on the Government of Quebec to go a step further. She wants it to acknowledge the presence of systemic racism in its institutions, and work hard to eliminate the kinds of things that women like Joyce Echaquan experience.

In response, the Government of Quebec recently tabled Bill 32 on cultural safety. I have to say, we are fortunate to have Joyce’s Principle in its entirety.

Canada is also committed to advancing the fight against racism and discrimination. I also understand that a bill on Indigenous health is being developed to fight racism and discrimination.

In my heart, I tell myself that when someone arrives at the hospital, they have the right to be treated with dignity, respect and without discrimination or racism. I’m eagerly anticipating the day that this bill is introduced in the other place and arrives here in the Senate, so that we can all honour Joyce’s memory together, hers and the thousands of others who left without being heard.

I made a promise to her spouse, Carol, her mother, Diane, and an entire community. I promised to walk beside Joyce Echaquan, and I know many people here in this chamber will as well.

Thank you. I want to tell the family that I love them. Today is a difficult day, but we have a collective responsibility to ensure that all women, regardless of culture or background, are treated with dignity when they arrive at the hospital.

Thank you.

Hon. Michèle Audette: [Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu-aimun.]

Honourable senators, before sharing something I experienced today, I’d like to thank Senator McCallum. Tshinashkumitin.

[English]

It was important for me to see you, to feel you and to listen to you this morning, along with other survivors and families who participated in this event.

Senator Patterson, you gave me your spot, so I will try to honour it.

[Translation]

First of all, I’d like to thank Senator Patterson for giving me this opportunity to tell you about the ceremony that many of us took part in this morning, where people came to show us the sacred site of a new monument that will remind us of part of Canada’s history. It’s part of a path of healing for many of us, including me.

It is also the subject of Call to Action No. 81 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which states, and I quote:

We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Survivors and their organizations, and other parties to the Settlement Agreement, to commission and install a publicly accessible, highly visible, Residential Schools National Monument in the city of Ottawa to honour Survivors and all the children who were lost to their families and communities.

It happened this morning to the sound of Inuit song, Métis fiddle and the words of a First Nations woman. It was powerful and moving. The committee to create this monument will be made up of people from different nations and territories and from the government, and it will reflect on how to honour these little children and the families affected by residential schools.

The beautiful thing about First Nations’ protocols is that we must ask the permission of the people to welcome us. The Anishinaabe people were present and welcomed us with a lot of love and respect. This beautiful monument that we will one day see will be located where parliamentarians enter the building, on the west side of the Hill. It will be where everyone can see it, whether they are tourists, parliamentarians or people who come just to pay their respects to and commune with our ancestors.

I will close with some of the words that I heard spoken by men and women today: This is for the children who thought we did not love them. Every day, they will see that we carry them with us in our hearts.

Tshinashkumitin.

[English]

Senator Audette: It means that what happened in the past is a question that I should ask to the witnesses when they come to the Indigenous Peoples Committee. Thank you.

Hon. Michèle Audette: [Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu-aimun.]

I’ve been looking forward to sharing my love, my emotions, but also my experience as a senator in speaking to Bill C-13, for the substantive equality of Canada’s official languages.

I’ve noticed that you have a great deal of passion for those living in a vulnerable situation, in regions where there’s no French at all in downtown areas, where signage is strictly in English. My son lives in Vancouver and I want him to keep speaking French, my granddaughter too, but it is tougher.

I see things across Canada, but I’ve seen things here too: the passion, the determination, but especially the fear of losing and I understand that. I’ve tried not to scare you, but I’ve remained true to myself, true in my approach and in my words. We’ve all travelled, we’ve all enjoyed other places. Everywhere we go, the language is the first thing we hear. Sometimes, we notice the difference. It is the language that gives us an identity, a culture, a relationship with the land and also rights, responsibilities, a history, a contemporary life, but also aspirations for the future.

It’s the same here in Canada. It’s the same here, in this big, beautiful chamber. I’m certain everyone heard the president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami in 2018 when he brought out his bill to have Inuktitut recognized as an official language.

It didn’t work; it turned into a law for indigenous languages. However, it was important for the Inuit. They are the ones who live in the North but can be found throughout Canada. However, it was decided otherwise.

I try to speak English too, although sometimes it’s more like “franglais.” Thank you for being patient when I invent words. I can see from the look in your eyes when you don’t understand what I’ve said, but you are patient. Otherwise, I ask someone —

[English]

“Can you repeat what you are saying?”

[Translation]

That is my day-to-day reality. However, I also speak French. I learned it. As I have already said, my father is the most amazing Quebecer, but my mother is Innu. You will understand that I carry both identities. That is my responsibility. Every time a bill deals with languages, you will hear me say that Innu-aimun is also an official language. However, I haven’t gone to court yet, or found a lawyer yet, even though I’m surrounded by lawyers. It is not up to me to take that step, it is up to my nation and the other nations, and it is also up to you.

The international community will also say, and UNESCO will say, that Indigenous languages around the world, and even in Canada, are the vulnerable languages. They can even be classified as being at risk, vulnerable, seriously endangered or quite simply critically endangered.

So I understand you. I felt that you understand me, but we don’t have the same rights. That is when we start to wonder how we will bridge the gap and find ways to ensure that our rights can eventually line up.

I don’t want to have to keep going to court for that to happen. In any case, it would be too expensive for me, much less my nation. We already have too many cases before the courts.

That duality also inspires me when I look at the bill, because it will defend French, which is extremely important. As for the situation of the English-speaking minority, it is the same for the Naskapi, the Innu and the Cree, who were required to learn English. Mary May Simon was forced to learn English, and she was not allowed to study in French. With what is happening in Quebec, that becomes another legal and systemic barrier. That is yet another concern.

There is also something else I keep thinking about. Maybe someone can clarify. We keep hearing the term “Charter of the French Language.” Isn’t it just a legal tool to prevent the nations from challenging this issue before the Quebec courts? Some say no and some say yes, so it will be important to consider that perspective in the studies and analyses. Sometimes we do things and then realize later that we need to make adjustments. You know that I’m right about that. However, I know that it is important when a language is in a dangerous or precarious position.

You heard Senator Downe say that he felt as though we missed a historic opportunity to add Indigenous languages to the preamble or to mention it as one of the founding languages. What harm would that have done? I just have 60 amendments on that to present this evening. That was an Innu joke.

All that is to say that I am convinced that this will be added in 10 years. Something tells me that it will be added. There is the Indigenous Languages Act, but it doesn’t have the same teeth as the Official Languages Act. The commissioners don’t have the same powers at all.

You will tell me that it is not the same, but for me it is, because I am the first in the family to not pass on Innu-aimun. That hurts. It took an inquiry on Indigenous women and girls to once again say, “Let’s go. The provinces, territories and Canada need to add our Indigenous languages to their big book of official languages.”

Perhaps I will see it happen when I am a ghost haunting the Senate, but I would like to see it happen before that. Right after I was appointed, I met with the minister and I wished her good luck. We talked, and it was very pleasant and friendly, but there were still four things that I said to her. First I said, “Make sure that Indigenous languages are mentioned in the preamble. That is important. Words are important. Words make up paragraphs, paragraphs make up bills and so on.”

Then it will have to pass the test under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That part is not a given. I’m not sure, but we will see how the analysis goes.

Then I said to the minister, “I hope you and your team will get involved with the stewards, linguists, technolinguists and lawyers. Go see them and tell them where we can build bridges to make this more effective and to make sure that when I go to a federal organization, I can hear what is happening in my Indigenous language, and of course in English or French as well.”

That didn’t happen. I’m told that it should be in the Indigenous Languages Act. I’m certain that a balance could have been achieved, if we’d had the time. I was told that we would have the time in this place. I have some time, until 2040, in fact. We’ll have the time to thoroughly analyze this. However, I can tell you that for this one, it happened fast, too fast. So much so, in fact, that emotionally, it caused tension between friends and colleagues. I had a hard time with this situation, but I recovered after 24 or 48 hours.

Let’s make sure that when we get up and talk about reconciliation, when we talk about royal commissions, when we talk about commissions of inquiry into issues relating to Indigenous women, when we talk about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Canadians and the government have ordered us to do these things to give us social projects, particularly regarding languages. How can we harmonize, how can we coexist, how can we ensure that today I’m 17 — even if I’m 51 because of the Indian Act — and that I get the same rights and protections that we’re going to give to linguistic minority communities?

I have confidence. I’m patient, most of the time, though not always. However, I will not give up, I will never give up. Some of you know me, but if you don’t, let me assure you, I will not give up.

I have no issue telling Mr. Marc Miller or the next minister responsible for Indigenous relations, or the next minister responsible for Indigenous health or economic development, that the government is refusing to translate into an Indigenous language a success story between the nation and the government, the success of a federal department. I think that in this case as well, it should be added to the study to make sure that someone takes responsibility for it. If one day, I disclose something to a commissioner, I hope that the commissioner will have the power to make good recommendations, to ensure that there is no fear when making amendments or making this law more effective.

I hope you’ll be back. I hope that one day, we’ll manage to ensure that Indigenous peoples are entitled to 5% of music in the eyes of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, that it will not be considered foreign music, particularly considering that we were the ones who welcomed you when you arrived.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu-aimun.]

Hon. Michèle Audette: Good afternoon.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu-aimun.]

Colleagues, I just want to take a few seconds to thank you for your contribution to our celebrations this month. For Indigenous peoples across Canada, the month of June is a time to celebrate our stories and especially to celebrate our lives today and the youth who have finally put their feet, their moccasins, their running shoes in a place that may seem complicated and difficult. For me, the month of June is also salmon month.

Thank you to all of the youth who participated in the Voices of Youth Indigenous Leaders program.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu-aimun.]

You can see that my new Shaputuan is very pleasant, appealing and full of people who want to walk with you every day.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu-aimun.]

[English]

Hon. Michèle Audette: Would Senator Gold take a question?

Senator Audette: Thank you very much, Senator Gold.

This is a very emotional topic for me, but I believe that you will understand that Innu-aimun is also an official language in my heart. My other half, my Quebec half, reminds me that it is important to also protect French throughout Canada.

It is my Innu half that will ask you a question, Senator Gold.

Quebec has nations, chiefs and also the First Nations Education Council, which has 22 First Nation member communities. They are currently suing over the Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec, and have filed an application for judicial review to defend their position on the act. This will have direct consequences for education in our schools and our communities. I would like you to comment on the following scenario, as it frightens me. I am not a legal expert, but when I see a bill that becomes law and that specifically mentions a provincial charter or law, I wonder if that government can say, “Now, the federal government gives you full recognition, so I’m sorry, but you are covered by the Official Languages Act, and one of those languages is French.” I am speaking on behalf of Quebec’s First Peoples.

Senator Audette: Yes.

You know, before joining the Senate, I observed everyone in this chamber with a great deal of passion. There is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Many of you wondered whether this bill met the test of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. If not, how can we ensure that a commissioner of Indigenous languages can also collaborate with the Commissioner of Official Languages so that, in certain provinces, the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages also has some power? I know that we are talking about Bill C-13, but I would have liked to see some parallels or important relationships. I imagine we will be able to discuss it as part of this study. As a jurist, you mentioned it, and you may have some advice to give us.

Hon. Michèle Audette: [Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in an Indigenous language.]

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

In preparation, I did my homework so I could understand this definition and where it comes from. According to Robert Bullard, the father of environmental justice, I have come to understand that it means the following, and I quote:

Any policy, practice or directive that differentially affects or disadvantages (where intended or unintended) individuals, groups or communities based on race.

As I continued my research, I read Elizabeth May’s speech on this bill at second reading and I also came to understand the following, and I quote:

One of the things I know from cleaning up the Sydney tar ponds with Clotilda is that we can recognize as a reality that toxic chemicals do not discriminate. They do not pay attention to the colour of our skin when they lodge in our body, when they pass through placenta to children, when they cause cancer and when they cause birth defects. They do not care about the colour of our skin. However, the public policy that puts indigenous peoples and communities of colour far more frequently at risk of being exposed to toxic chemicals does notice skin colour. It does notice whether we are marginalized or not. It does notice whether we have money or not.

First Peoples have been experiencing environmental racism ever since the Doctrine of Discovery emerged from the papal bull Romanus Pontifex issued in 1455.

According to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, this doctrine, which relates to the older concept of terra nullius, has enshrined the principle whereby any Christian monarch who discovers non-Christian lands has the right to proclaim them his own, because they belong to no one.

It took the Vatican 568 years to repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery. I’m sure my colleagues will agree that this is one more step towards reconciliation — an important step.

However, today, in 2023, the pillaging of land and resources, the lack of access to or the isolation of reserves are still real. The damage and harmful impacts have continued to this day.

Environmental racism is also the cause of the community impoverishment, and the loss of our culture and our customs. This environmental racism has also diminished our food sources.

Environmental racism also plays a role in the creation of mining projects without the participation or consent of communities, and it pollutes the environment of these communities, their fauna, their flora and their waterways.

My home in Matimekush-Lac-John, Schefferville, has the biggest 18 holes in the world. However, I’m not talking about golf holes, but mining holes. In this very community, Conrad André, in an article published on June 8, 2022 on Radio‑Canada’s Internet site, asked the following question, and I quote:

How is it that IOC makes billions, but there is not one single Innu millionaire here?

In that very community, Mathieu André, an Innu born 50 kilometres northwest of Schefferville, discovered the first iron deposit near Knob Lake in the 1930s.

This discovery led in part to the iron rush in the border region of Labrador and Quebec. Mathieu André is now in Caribou country, but his son Luc says that after his father’s discovery, Labrador Mining was able to develop the land, promising the people and the Innus a percentage of the profits it would make from the deposits.

However, he said, and I quote:

We never got anything. We met the mining company and we were told that if they had to give something to one person, they would have to give to everyone.

[English]

In Ontario, Aamjiwnaang First Nation is surrounded by 50 industrial plants within a 24-kilometre radius of its territory. Their people are disproportionately exposed to toxic substances such as sulphur dioxide, benzene, mercury and others. A 30‑year‑old chair of the local environment committee, Janelle Nahmabin, says she has grown increasingly frustrated at seeing her community shoulder the health risks of industries operating in the area:

Quite frankly, we’ve been here for a millennia — forever. For us to have to continuously be the ones accommodating, I’m done with that. I’m done with having to compromise our health, our mental well-being, our safety, for everybody else.

She also adds that asthma and other breathing problems, along with rashes, headaches and high cancer rates, are among the most prevalent health issues on the reserve.

Shelburne, Nova Scotia, according to a CBC interview with Louise Delisle, a resident of Shelburne, the community’s history with cancer, disease and death are connected to the dumping ground for industrial and sometimes even medical waste just around the corner. Ms. Delisle said:

The majority of the black men in the community have died from cancer . . . There’s a community of widows in Shelburne. That’s what it is.

We also find a map compiled by the Environmental Noxiousness, Racial Inequities and Community Health Project showing dozens of waste disposal sites in close proximity to communities, either Black communities or Indigenous populations. The map also encompasses dozens of stories similar to Shelburne’s story, where we can find a dump and slaughterhouse built near Halifax’s Africville in the late 1700s, a paper mill’s effluent pond next to the Pictou Landing First Nation and yet more landfills built in the Black community of Lincolnville in Guysborough County.

Dr. Ingrid Waldron, who also co-produced the film There’s Something in the Water, says:

It’s not only about health and stress. It’s about lack of power, that you’ve placed certain industries in certain communities without consulting with them. You’ve taken away their power, you’ve taken away their voice, and you’ve placed it in communities that are not only racialized but that are also poor.

[Translation]

The Horne smelter in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, which has been singled out for releasing above-acceptable levels of 23 contaminants, is now planning to expand a buffer zone. A total of 200 homes will be demolished and the people who live there will have to relocate — families, children, Quebecers and many others. Why is this happening? Because the smelter is exempted from Quebec’s airborne arsenic emission standard, as it was in operation long before these environmental standards came into effect.

Need I remind everyone that the concentration of arsenic in young children’s fingernails is four times higher in this region? Need I remind everyone that in 1940, again in the same region, no one could swim in Osisko Lake, between Noranda and Rouyn? In 1979, the Quebec government was warned of the dangers the Horne smelter posed to children in the Notre-Dame district, who had two to three times higher levels of arsenic in their hair.

[English]

The same issues have been raised in Canadian Family Physician, the official journal of the College of Family Physicians of Canada, last August. The abstract to this article reads as follows:

You are a family physician doing a locum in northwestern Ontario. Your next patient is a 6-year-old child who presents with chronic fatigue and paresthesia in their extremities. Upon physical examination, you also discover bilateral hearing impairment. You recall reading in the news that, years ago, 10,000 kg of mercury were dumped into the Wabigoon River, thereby polluting downstream water and poisoning the fish that sustain communities such as . . . (Grassy Narrows) First Nation. In addition to other investigations, you conduct a 24-h urine mercury test for the patient and ascertain that they have abnormal mercury levels. How do you treat this patient? How do you respond to this issue at the community level? To what extent do you consider how the environment, history, and economic factors contributed to this patient’s presentation?

This is despite the fact we know that Indigenous communities are often the most impacted when the worst happens, like the two oil spills in Alberta last year which were identified months before First Nations were notified.

[Translation]

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples of the world, and it must be implemented in Canada.

A national strategy to assess and prevent environmental racism must absolutely be rooted in that declaration and carry the voices of the original stewards of these lands.

[English]

Other interesting solutions are put forward by the authors of the article in Canadian Family Physician, which the strategy should take into account:

First, as health care providers and Canadians, we need to educate ourselves about the true history of Canada. Second, we should become aware that environmental racism exists in our country, and as per the CanMEDS-Family Medicine Indigenous Health Supplement, we must “challenge the systems that we work in to make changes to racist processes and policy.” We know racialized communities are disproportionately affected by environmental hazards and we know this has profound health implications. If we want to address health from a proactive and preventive standpoint, we must advocate for sustainable change and listen to the voices of those who are affected.

[Translation]

A national strategy must also include provisions related to education, public input in environmental decision making, self‑determination for communities in matters related to water, food production, housing distribution, energy, transportation and the creation of an environmental bill of rights.

Simply put, environmental racism is very much a reality in Canada. As the United Nations has declared, a healthy environment is a human right. Let’s give ourselves the means to counter environmental racism and move towards environmental justice.

I say to you once again, we cannot change history, but we can and we must change our present, to adopt a more responsible attitude in an effort to fix the mistakes of the past and to write a new chapter together.

Thank you, senator, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. Of course I support this bill. Together, I know we have the power to change things, big and small.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Bernard, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Michèle Audette: Your Honour, Senator Cordy and Anishinaabe people, I am speaking to you.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in an Indigenous language.]

Esteemed colleagues, I would like to share with you some information and an important message about the resolve and dedication of families and individuals in Quebec communities who have worked hard for years to find out what happened to their children when they were hospitalized. We are talking about missing or deceased babies who never came home.

The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, in Quebec, was able to hear from families from Atikamekw, Innu, Anishinabek and other nations in the course of its inquiries. They talked about losing a baby following hospitalization between 1950 and 1980.

Imagine if it were your child, in 2023. It would be a scandal. What is even more upsetting is that these families were asked if they knew where their child was buried. They do not know. Grief contends with doubt. Again, if it were my child, I would want to know why they died and where they are.

Call for Justice 20 gave the Government of Quebec an important mandate to introduce a bill, which has since become law. The families know how their babies died and where they are buried, and that is important. We’re talking about 120 little beings of light who never returned home after the hospitalizations. My colleagues can appreciate why I care so deeply about commissions of inquiry, regardless of the subject.

I want to say thank you to the Atikamekw, Anishinaabekg and Innu families, as well as all other First Nations families, for their courage and for their word, which has become part of Canada’s truth. I also thank the people from Quebec and Canada who work to share information with everyone who is looking for answers.

Most importantly, colleagues, I want to tell you that this is just the beginning of a truth that has been hidden for too long. Tshinashkumitin.

[English]

Hon. Michèle Audette: I’d like to ask Senator Batters a question.

Hon. Michèle Audette: Kuei, minister. Calls for Justice 4.1 and 4.8 of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls urge your department to respect the social and economic rights of Indigenous women and girls and to ensure that Indigenous people have the services and infrastructure necessary to meet their needs, such as access to safe housing, clean water and adequate food.

How much has your government or department invested or spent, and what concrete action has your department taken to respond to the Calls for Justice that I just mentioned? Thank you.