Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson: Honourable senators, I rise on the territory of the Algonquin and Anishinaabeg people to speak in favour of Senator McCallum’s Motion No. 10.

I want to thank my colleague Senator Coyle for that beautiful speech. You got my heart pounding. It was very well done. Thank you.

Colleagues, in the beginning, when the European settlers first arrived, the nature of the relationship with First Peoples has been described as a relatively peaceful coexistence. The relationship wasn’t great. It wasn’t even good. Nonetheless, there was a dialogue beginning between First Peoples and individual settlers, which, if allowed to expand and flourish, held real potential.

However, at the very same time, the country we now know as Canada also began to take shape. The government needed to secure Crown land, create an international border, create a system of individual land ownership and sell our natural resources to pay for it all.

Indigenous people were viewed as a barrier to progress and therefore needed to be moved off the land and absorbed into this process of nation building. To accomplish this, the government promoted three fundamentally racist assumptions: One, that Indigenous people were primitive and uncivilized; two, that they were godless and heathen; and three, that they were childlike and unable to make decisions for themselves.

Those ideas — those lies — were used to justify all the laws, policies and programs the government used to segregate and forcefully assimilate First Nations, Métis and Inuit people. Combined with the obvious language barriers between settlers and First Peoples and the pre-existing fear many settlers had of Indigenous people, settlers never really got to know who Indigenous people were.

How would individual settlers have had the chance to understand this beautiful Indigenous interconnected worldview? Communities and nations were deeply interconnected, creating a complex and robust safety net for children to ensure their protection, education and positive identity and vocational development.

In addition, at the time of settlement every nation had a legal tradition, a constellation of strict laws, values and ethics that guided the behaviour of all members. But, again, how would settlers have known?

Senator McCallum’s motion first proposes that the Senate acknowledge that racism, in all its forms, was a cornerstone upon which the residential school system was created. She asked us to acknowledge the racism and to acknowledge the far-reaching intergenerational impacts of the residential school system.

One definition of racism is:

. . . the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another. . . .

There is ample evidence that the government of first England, then Canada used those racist assumptions to distinguish Indigenous peoples as inferior to justify the laws and policies passed to control every aspect of their familial, social, political and spiritual lives.

This included the Indian residential school system, which had three components. First was to break the bonds of kinship by removing children from the influence of their family and community for the majority of their childhood.

In 1908, the then minister of Indian affairs Frank Oliver predicted that residential schools’ attendance would “elevate the Indian from his condition of savagery.”

Later, Duncan Scott, deputy superintendent of the Department of Indian Affairs, stated frankly that the provision of education to Indian communities was necessary, for without it Indigenous people would be an undesirable and dangerous element in society .

Honourable senators, the bonds of kinship were broken so significantly that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples reported that:

Aboriginal children learned to despise the traditions and accomplishments of their people, to reject the values and spirituality that had always given meaning to their lives, to distrust the knowledge and lifeways of their families and kin. By the time they were free to return to their villages, many had learned to despise themselves.

Second, residential school attendance was meant to stop the development of an Indigenous identity through acculturation into European culture and Christianity. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples found that the focus of residential schools was not education, and the school staff were not trained teachers. In fact, a departmental study found that as late as 1950:

. . . over 40 per cent of the teaching staff had no professional training. Indeed, some had not even graduated from high school.

Most teachers were priests or nuns, who focused their efforts on the Christianization of children and the destruction of the cultural and spiritual expression of Indigenous people.

And, senators, the assumption that Indigenous people were godless and heathen was an appalling misunderstanding. Children raised in their loving families, in that web of deep, caring relationships, had a profound connection with their loving Creator. They certainly didn’t need religious conversion.

The truth is that Duncan Campbell Scott was absolutely aware that the residential schools were providing a poor quality of education that was well under the standards of that time period. He was also aware of the lack of funding for the schools and neglect by the Department of Indian Affairs. Undernourished children with depressed immunities living in overcrowded, unsanitary dormitories led to the spread of disease, like tuberculosis, among the children, who died without proper medical attention. And there was a doctor.

Between 1904 and 1914, the chief medical officer for the Department of Indian Affairs, Peter Bryce, wrote numerous reports detailing the unsanitary conditions of the schools and the very high rate of death of the children. In addition, in 1907, he did a special inspection of 35 different Indian schools in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which the government never made public. It said:

Regarding the health of the pupils, the report states that 24 percent of all the pupils which had been in the schools were known to be dead, while of one school on the File Hills Reserve, which gave a complete return to date, 75 percent were dead at the end of the 16 years since the school opened.

He offered sensible recommendations to the government to fix the problem.

Dr. Bryce, a professor from McGill, also wanted to bring the tragedy of the high rate of death of Indigenous children to a meeting of the Canadian Tuberculosis Association. The federal government not only blocked the discussion but did nothing to attempt to stop the spread of TB in the schools and took no action to provide medical attention for sick children. They essentially condemned the children to a painful death.

Again — this was 1914 — the government knew better and chose not to act in the best interest of the children. They didn’t think Indigenous children were worth the expense or the trouble. Dr. Bryce called it “transparent hypocrisy.”

Bryce noted that, at home and with good sanitation, Indians had a higher birth rate and a lower infant mortality rate than non‑Indigenous people and therefore should see significant population growth. And, if the same quality of health care would have been provided in Alberta to Indigenous peoples “. . . much might have been done to prevent such a splendid race of warriors as the Blackfeet from decreasing,” noting that the actual loss of population for that community was 40%.

Finally, Bryce worked to ensure that the development of a bill for a Department of Health — our very first Canada Health Act — would include Indian medical service. However, the bill entered second reading with the Indigenous clause removed. Bryce despaired that the Minister of Health:

. . . could with all the accumulated facts and statistics before him condemn to further indefinite suffering and neglect these Wards of the Canadian people, whom one Government after another had made treaties with and whom deputies and officials had sworn to assist and protect.

This led to a complete confusion between provincial and federal jurisdiction — does that sound familiar to anyone? — that resulted in no one claiming responsibility to ensure Indigenous people received adequate health care.

Bryce even tried to convince the government to do better, noting that in 1914, 2,000 Indigenous people had already volunteered to fight for the empire in the First World War.

Honourable senators, we are often accused of judging the past based on today’s standards. The truth is that bureaucrats knew they had a problem, but didn’t want to spend the money saving the lives and properly educating Indigenous children because the third and final goal of residential schools was to eventually free the government of any treaty obligations by assimilating Indians through enfranchisement. Children who didn’t survive were no longer their problem.

Finally, Senator McCallum asks us that the Senate apologize unreservedly for Canada’s role in the establishment of the residential school system.

I spent a lot of time reading the Debates of the Senate from 1920. They were very instructive. In 1920, the Senate debated the amendments to the Indian Act that would make residential schools mandatory. Senator Lougheed, the government sponsor of the bill, argued that Senate should pass the bill, stating that the schools were:

. . . manned by competent teachers; Indian children have been taken from their parents and furnished with educational advantages and desirable influences, . . . .

Nothing could have been further from the truth.

The critic, Senator Bostock, was highly suspicious of the bill, stating:

I think it’s a serious matter indeed for the Government to undertake to take these Indian children in this way and separate them from their parents and their home surroundings and to put them in boarding schools, which, if careful inquiry were made, I think we might find were subject to certain objections and not altogether satisfactory.

Senators, they knew the conditions of the schools were bad.

In fact, Senator Bostock made a compelling argument regarding the difference in the Indigenous mentality and how it is largely misunderstood by White people. He argued that the Indian would see the situation differently and that the government should take into consideration the position of Indigenous leaders very carefully. He wanted the government to consult with Indigenous leaders.

Further, he had consulted with the Indians of British Columbia, stating:

I think they have shown every desire to have their children educated and trained and that the children themselves have shown that they have a mentality that makes them capable of acquiring information and of responding very quickly to the training they are given.

It appears they were advocating for day schools, which would allow for children to stay with their families while acquiring an education.

The bill’s sponsor was not persuaded. He said:

In many cases it is very desirable to take the children away from the demoralizing influences which surround them in their homes. The children are placed in those boarding schools, under not only moral, but religious influences . . . .

Colleagues, senators knew that Christianization was a primary goal. The fact that the schools were not even run by the government but through contracts with the church was also called into question. Senator Turriff, who also opposed the bill, asked what the educational record of the schools was. He mused that surely, after 25 years, there should be Indian teachers, doctors, lawyers and farmers. The bill’s sponsor replied that he didn’t have the statistics, and blamed poor educational outcomes on the nomadic nature of the Indians.

Senators, reading the Debates of the Senate makes it obvious. They knew the school conditions were bad, the educational outcomes were poor and that Indigenous leaders didn’t want their children to attend. They also knew it was immoral to remove children from their families and communities. But they went along with it anyway.

For these reasons, the Senate has ample reason to apologize. By passing this motion, the Senate will finally apologize for our institution’s role in an atrocity that was perpetrated on generations of Indigenous children and continues to affect the lives of people to this day.

Senators, if you agree, I would like to call the question on this motion. Hiy hiy.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of September 28, 2022, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, October 4, 2022, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have just one quick question.

Government leader, Indigenous communities have grown tired of the inaction on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report. In fact, it took the horrific discovery of 215 unmarked graves to get the government to complete just three of the TRC’s Calls to Action. Yet even then, the Prime Minister chose to go surfing on the first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

Leader, when will the Prime Minister finally admit that he has no real plan to deliver on the TRC’s Calls to Action?

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the honourable senator named above had made and subscribed the Declaration of Qualification required by the Constitution Act, 1867, in the presence of the Clerk of the Senate, the Commissioner appointed to receive and witness the said declaration.

[English]

Senator Plett: We are continually being told how seriously you take this. Leader, when asked about this the other day, a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino said that the decision is not up to politicians. That it is “a careful, non-political process undertaken by Canada’s natural security agencies.” Not political.

Senator Gold, it is unbelievable that your government is trying to play this off as something that is not your responsibility, when you take it as seriously as you do, and yet it is somehow not your responsibility. Where there is a national security interest to act, officials respond, Senator Gold.

The question is a straightforward one, a yes-or-no answer, Senator Gold: Does the government believe that the IRGC is a terrorist entity or does it not?

Senator Martin: Yes, but the numbers just don’t add up, leader. According to the government’s own website, only 17 Calls to Action have been completed, yet Indigenous Watchdog calculates that only 7 are completed. And the CBC gives them credit for just eight. So regardless of where you get your figures, it’s clear that the government has fallen way behind on their promise to deliver on reconciliation.

When will the Liberal government pick up the pace and finally deliver on their seven-year-old promise?

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at Day 14. Therefore, I move that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells:

That the Senate call on the Government of Canada to:

(a)denounce the illegitimacy of the Cuban regime and recognize the Cuban opposition and civil society as valid interlocutors; and

(b)call on the Cuban regime to ensure the right of the Cuban people to protest peacefully without fear of reprisal and repudiation.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, last year, the Prime Minister stated on the first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation that 80% of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action were completed or well under way. Yet, according to the Yellowhead Institute, a national watchdog on Indigenous reconciliation, only 8 of the 76 Calls to Action under federal jurisdiction have been completed. That’s barely 10%.

When will the Prime Minister stop the rhetoric and deliver on the promises he made to Indigenous people?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the time for Question Period has expired.

Hon. Lucie Moncion introduced Bill S-252, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week.

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Carignan: My colleague is an extremely intelligent person, and I don’t think he understood my question, based on the answer he gave.

I will rephrase my primary question: Did the federal government consult with the provinces before introducing Bill C-31?

I have a follow-up question. Is the government aware that in Quebec, children under the age of 10 receive free dental care for most dental treatments? Will people still receive $650 even if the care they received was free?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator. I will have to look into the matter and report back as quickly as I can.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, there have been consultations and there is an agreement to allow a photographer in the Senate Chamber to photograph the introduction of a new senator.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): The Prime Minister and this government are committed, as I’ve said before in response to your earlier question, to do their leadership part to advance us, as a country, on the path of truth and reconciliation.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

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

An Hon. Senator: Question.

Hon. Senators: Question.