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

And thank you for the good question; it is also important and very sacred. Thank you, Senator LaBoucane-Benson.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, nearly five years ago, I delivered my inaugural speech where you are seated now, Senator Youance. In my speech, I said that I would be scattering beads, some of which might be beads representing truth and hope, in the hope that my colleagues in this place would help gather them so that we could work together.

There are people watching us who are outside this shaputuan, which is a large Innu tent, or a bubble, as others might call it. That is okay by me too. It is therefore essential to remember and to tell those watching us that, for me and for many people, the Senate plays a fundamental role within our democratic institutions. That is very clear.

It is also a place where minority voices can be heard. That is the role of committees: to consult, listen, debate and exchange ideas. These spaces allow us to better understand the realities experienced by the communities and to represent, or rather lift up, those whose voices are too often ignored.

That was the spirit in which I approached consideration of Bill C-9 yesterday, even though I knew that some amendments had been rejected. I respect that decision. I feel emotional about it, but I respect it.

That is what got me thinking a lot last night. Yes, we have the right to react, but how can we also take action?

I also want to point out that some people in this chamber experienced residential schools first-hand. We have proof of that. Those same residential schools became a day school system that I was part of. It must never be forgotten that several of us attended day schools or still live with their harmful intergenerational effects. It is important to me to clarify that all this is part of history in 2026 too.

The effects of these policies didn’t end after a single generation. They still linger. Our families, communities and institutions are still affected. That’s why these debates are never purely theoretical. They are coloured by emotion and lived experience.

I’m going to say this in my own words — because, yes, words are important. Our debates are debates of law, but also debates of fact and living debates. When we rise, we rise to share our experience, our memories and our lived experiences. That’s what makes our work so meaningful. It’s what also forces us to look for practical ways to move forward: It’s a portage, because we cross all this ground together.

It’s true that consultations are very important. Engagement with First Nations, Inuit and Métis is essential, but I would not want the duty to consult to always become a barrier to action. It must not prevent us from doing what we can do today. Every little step allows us to go further.

That’s why I was left feeling unsatisfied or a bit sore yesterday, because we weren’t able to resolve everything with the amendments or with certain amendments that were rejected. Still, we should remember that these amendments were not a substitute for consultations. They would not have excused the government from working with First Nations and Indigenous Peoples. They would have been a step in the right direction.

Once again, this shows why words are important. Like you, Senator Moreau, I feel they are important. Words are important, but when certain words are omitted from legislation, they are even more important. The word “denialism” wasn’t in there, but we’re finding solutions. Let it be known that Indigenous women get the job done.

That’s why I can’t help but wonder whether I should expect the government to come back with its own legislative proposal developed in collaboration with the First Peoples who hold the knowledge. That would be a commendable initiative on the government’s part, because that could address one of its commitments. The government has made a commitment to respond to the Calls for Justice and many other matters and issues that affect Indigenous Peoples. That would be solid proof that the government’s commitment will translate into concrete action.

I still have 20 years left here. I hope I don’t find myself saying “we didn’t see that in this bill” for the next 20 years. Are we also becoming a state that is guilty of institutional denialism? I certainly hope not. If we are, you can count on me to always lovingly call it out.

The government has also committed to responding to the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. The government received recommendations from Kimberly Murray, who served as the Independent Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves and Burial Sites associated with Indian Residential Schools.

Too often in these debates, we end up divided, just as we are right now. We could have sensed this division, or rather we did sense it. In all sincerity, I believe we need to come together to achieve a common goal, which is to combat hatred. We have experience with hatred. We are on the receiving end of it. We must not forget that we’ve pushed aside a group. To be completely honest, it could be put another way, but, in my own words, we’ve pushed aside a group. We need to reverse course right away and say, “We didn’t really push you aside, because you’re experiencing this hatred, too.”

I will therefore be following the next steps very closely.

I also want to remind you — because history is important — that in 2019, in this chamber, back when I was still a “free moccasin,” I was wrapping up the national inquiry, and we were closely examining how the Senate had taken a firm stance on an issue that directly affected the representation of former students of residential schools. At the time, a senator had posted letters on an institutional platform containing comments that were considered racist towards First Nations peoples and residential schools. The Senate took action. The Senate concluded that this occurrence was not merely an intellectual debate, but a matter of our institutions’ responsibility towards the truth, the dignity of the survivors and our collective memory. That gave me hope.

This decision was also a reminder of how we talk about this history and its real consequences. I should also remind you that, just recently, back home in my land that people call Quebec, Nitassinan, the top headline one morning on RDI, TVA and others was about “a white Quebec.” “A white Quebec,” in 2026, last week. This happened just recently, though our long days in the Senate are throwing my sense of time out of whack. To me, it felt like 10,000 years of my Innu ancestors’ history had been wiped out. Speech like that isn’t neutral. It’s still very present and it hurts. Let’s bear in mind that this reality can’t simply disappear with the snap of a finger. Yes, it will be important to find solutions so that we no longer have to wake up to this kind of image.

I will conclude by saying that we are fortunate to be able to consult, study, listen and debate within our committees. In addition, two First Nations sisters, who experienced the effects of residential schools and day schools, are sending a message of love to the people here and in the other place, saying that it may be time for our committees to really study these issues, which, unfortunately, are still highly relevant today.

This is the little bead I’m putting down in front of you, colleagues. We are all witnessing these truths. Personally, I love speaking out, but what I love most of all is taking action.

Legislative reconciliation on these issues will be important. I hope that we will create a chapter, that we can say the two chambers did it mamu, meaning together, and that we will ensure that Bill C-9 is improved or, at the very least, properly drafted.

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