Senator McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading of Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Regulation Adapting the Canada Elections Act for the Purposes of a Referendum (voting age).

I would like to thank Senator McPhedran for bringing this initiative forward and for her tireless work and advocacy on this file. I would like to begin with a quote from Ms. Diane Redsky, a citizen of Shoal Lake 40 First Nation and recipient of an honourary law degree from the University of Winnipeg, 2022.

In reflecting on this legislation, Ms. Redsky states:

In Grade 4 I received an award on a speech I presented: “why children should have the right to vote.’ I was already recognizing at this young age the inequality that exists where decisions affecting my future were being made without my voice and I felt strongly that this was wrong. I still believe youth must have a say in decisions that impact their future. Our Elders are always reminding us, responsible and respectful decision making must factor in the seven generations ahead of us. Changing the voting age to 16 will go a long way in ensuring we are all working towards a strong and sustainable future for everyone.

Ms. Redsky recently resigned as the executive director of the Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre in Winnipeg, where she brought leadership and voice on Aboriginal issues. She is a nationally renowned visionary thinker and community leader who has long worked to address the myriad of issues facing Winnipeg’s urban Aboriginal community in all areas of health, justice, education and social services.

Since 1993, she has served in both a professional and volunteer capacity, working within the social services sector. She has become a strong advocate for Aboriginal, children’s and women’s issues. She has helped create numerous and innovative programs that have helped build healthy communities.

Colleagues, Ms. Redsky — this distinguished, passionate and caring woman — is the same person as that determined youth who wanted to vote at the age of 14 so she could bring voice to the inequalities that she experienced. Imagine the positive evolution our society would experience if our youth were allowed the right to a vote, bringing with them clear eyes and a fresh perspective. This movement would represent, as Senator McPhedran said in her initial speech, “. . . the revitalization of our democracy.”

Honourable senators, speaking from the perspective of a Cree iskwêw, a woman, this bill enables our youth to voice concerns about the future of their world, expressed with intelligence and critical thinking. This would be the culmination of their request to be involved in our democratic system.

For those of you who have participated in the round table forums Senator McPhedran has organized on this legislation, you will know the respect and diligence with which the youth approach this possibility. During their advocacy week, Indigenous youth reached out to parliamentarians and highlighted priorities that they would like to raise to government, and the common issues were mental health and wellness; water, land and energy; access to culturally safe, quality education and Indigenous sovereignty and cultural revitalization.

These youth were articulate in voicing the concerns that impact their lives. They viewed their work as a serious responsibility and privilege, and they did, unquestionably, say that they had a stake in their communities, their country and in this planet.

Colleagues, in 1991, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing studied the question of lowering the voting age to 16. Reasons to support a change included avoiding age discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and encouraging youth while young people were still in school and could take part in civic education.

In 1991, the commission carried out public opinion surveys on lowering the voting age and found that most Canadians, including teens, did not support lowering the voting age. The commission suggested that the question of voting age be reconsidered from time to time as society changes.

Society has now changed to the extent that youth and adults are very concerned about their future, and rightly so. The time is now to once again revisit lowering the voting age.

Colleagues, Canadians have spent their lives in the most prosperous and privileged place on earth. In his book Thinking like a Mountain, Robert Bateman states, at page 32, that:

To act nobly is most certainly to make good decisions for our grandchildren’s futures, yet many of us seem to have forgotten how to think this way. There is a traditional North American Native saying that could help us all: ‘We must plan our path not just for this generation and the next but for seven generations to come . . . .’ Does this sound impossible in a time when stock market traders plan for the next few seconds, corporate CEOs manage primarily for short-term profit and politicians can’t seem to see beyond the next election?

He continues:

But the questions on the other side are stronger: Can we possibly continue to live as we do, spending the Earth’s resources as if there is no tomorrow? Will our species survive a continuing onslaught of its own overconsumption?

The youth, over these past many years, have been voicing concerns about the state of Mother Earth, a reality we have arrived at through adult-driven decisions. It is time we work with our youth, those who will inherit this world.

In an article entitled “Voting Age Challenge Update,” published in the April 2021 newsletter of the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, author Sara Nematallah writes:

In November of 2019, the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights and Justice for Children and Youth, in partnership with other child rights organizations, initiated efforts to challenge the minimum voting age for federal elections set by the Canada Elections Act, SC 2000, c. 9. . . .

The David Asper Centre is using the 2019 Frank v. Canada court case for arguing the unconstitutionality of the current voting age. They concluded that:

Since voting is a fundamental political right, and the right to vote is a core tenet of Canadian democracy, any limit on the right to vote must be carefully scrutinized and cannot be tolerated without a compelling justification.

In the David Asper Centre newsletter, experts from the fields of political theory, international law, cognitive sciences and social sciences supported the challenge that:

. . . theoretical writings, sociological studies and scientific studies produced by these experts dispel many of the misconceptions around youth voting — most notably the myth that youths under the age of 18 do not have the cognitive capacity to vote, and the myth that allowing young people to vote harms democracy by enabling uninformed and uninterested youths to participate in the democratic process. . . . psychological and cognitive social science studies from the last decade demonstrate that youths as young as 14 develop adult-level complex reasoning skills that enable them to make voting decisions of the same quality as adults, and international jurisdictions where voting ages have been lowered below 18 have reported that youths are an engaged and informed voting group and that their inclusion has produced no negative effects on democracy. While these experts approach the issue of voting ages from a variety of different angles, they generally align on the view that using the age of 18 as a proxy for democratic competency is arbitrary and cannot be justified by what we currently know about youth decision making.

Colleagues, we must embrace the fact that there is no compelling justification that exists to continue to subvert the voices of youth. Instead, we must listen to them and support them in becoming thriving global citizens by knowing that they have the capacity to succeed and supporting their growth in becoming politically active. We can do so by supporting Bill S-201.

Let us also remember the issue of mature minors and their ability to make life-and-death decisions that we know is coming; they are allowed to make life-and-death decisions, but they are not allowed to vote.

Honourable senators, I am privileged to share the words said to me in 2015, before I became a senator, by students in three Grade 6 classrooms at Bruce Middle School in the Winnipeg School Division. They had invited me to speak to them about residential schools, and they had completed an initiative called Project of Heart.

In one of the classrooms, one group made an inukshuk from their tiles, and the young boy who was the spokesperson said to me:

We chose the inukshuk because it is a sign that shows the way. We chose colours to go with the values. The arms are red because it signifies courage and caring. The legs are blue because blue represents peace because you cannot lead without peace.

The last boy to speak that day said:

I can’t leave without sharing my work with you. My tile is about yin and yang. Life is about balance, and we have both negative and positive experiences. We learn to accept this reality and we learn from both because even the negative experiences have much to teach us.

These students are probably in university now, but I would say that they had long been preparing themselves to be socially responsible citizens.

Colleagues, our youth have been told countless times that they are the leaders of tomorrow, that they are our future. Let us not be afraid to back up these platitudes with concrete action, lest we simply be paying them lip service. If we are to take seriously our role of representing the marginalized and the voiceless, we must challenge ourselves to act now. Whether or not we are comfortable to admit it, we must acknowledge that our youth are amongst those voiceless citizens whom we must be diligent in representing. What better and more meaningful way to do so than support an initiative that compels them to become civically engaged and active Canadians exercising the right to have a say in their lives and their futures?

Let us create space to hear from youth and experts by referring this bill to committee. The intent now is to use this moment of age discrimination as a springboard from which we can actualize understanding, respect, equity, diversity, inclusion and reconciliation of and with our youth. Kinanâskomitin, thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson (Nunavut), seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas, for the second reading of Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (property qualifications of Senators).

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dalphond, for the second reading of Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council).

Senator McCallum: Yes.

Senator McCallum: Thank you. After I left the residential school, I always attributed my accomplishments to residential schools because that’s how we were taught. At one point in my life, I realized that it wasn’t the residential school that provided this — it was my community, my family and the elders in my community.

I was at home until the age of five, and the parenting that I experienced was very positive: I was never hit. I was taught the values of sharing, tradition, hospitality, respect for people, as well as for the land, and the intersectionality of the web of life. I learned all of that before the age of five. I had my language, the tatsu language. I knew that I belonged to myself.

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

I owned my body. I owned my thoughts. There was much laughter and joy and skipping and running through the forest.

Imagine when I entered the residential school in that big steel building that it was so rigid. I didn’t speak English. I remember being strapped. The first time I was strapped, I didn’t understand what I had done wrong because I didn’t know the rules. I didn’t understand English. I was strapped in front of all the students; I had to take down my pants. When you experience violence more and more, you start to shut down. The self-determination I had learned was taken away because they wanted blind obedience.

You learned to shut down your emotions and your critical thinking because that was not encouraged. Creativity and curiosity were both a no-no. You learned to develop a new sense in terms of gauging the environment you were in. Your aim was not to grow but to prevent corporal punishment, so your senses started to dictate that. You started to notice the tone of voice and anger.

There was no grounding because the rules would change depending on the mood of the supervisor. One of them would take the girls’ heads and bang them together — in front of all of us. She would do this to the older girls. This behaviour was modelled, and it silenced me in many ways.

In the classroom, I was hit with a yardstick because I didn’t know the answer to a question. I was hit on my hands and head during piano lessons just because I hit the wrong note. You learned that you’re imperfect and bad. The physical abuse made me compliant and informed the relationships that I was to have. The older boys were forced to get switches for the boys and hit them, with the supervisors looking on.

We brought that violence into our communities. The churches, of course, were very active in the community.

When you look at the high rates of violence, whether it’s intimate partner violence or corporal punishment inflicted on children, it brings home the violence and anger, which stays with you for a lifetime. I am 70 today, and I’m still dealing with the trauma.

This issue was something that I had to deal with. I’m glad I did, and I’m glad I shared it with you. It is only when people know what the system has done to us that we can start to make changes, and start to understand the changes that need to be made; we can begin to understand why we have over‑incarceration in the corrections system, much of which is due to violence.

I visited the Stony Mountain Institution in Manitoba and spoke to the people there. When I spoke to advocates, they stated that children in care today are still experiencing corporal punishment; it’s ongoing.

That is why I said that work needs to be done — other than simply repealing this act. What is it that you hope will come out of it? Is it a national study so that all Canadians are involved?

Part of the way in which I will engage in reconciliation with my family — I never hit my children, by the way — never. I knew how much it hurt, and I was not going to do that. We are going to start Cree classes with my family and my grandchildren, and make certain that my grandchildren will not experience what we had to endure. This is looking at the next seven generations. My ancestors did this for me seven generations ago. All of us are living ancestors. We do what is right for the next few generations.

Thank you for listening. I thank you from my heart.

Senator McCallum: He said “. . . either you must have this labour, or you can’t have the railway.”

As construction of the railway neared completion, MacDonald willingly yielded to prejudiced and discriminatory politicians, trade unionists and public opinion. In 1884, he appointed the Royal Commission on Chinese Immigration to investigate the restriction of Chinese immigrants.

Honourable senators, institutional racism was perpetuated by the Chinese Immigration Act and more than 100 other policies. They denied Chinese people the right to vote, to practise law or medicine, to hold public office, to seek employment on public works or to own Crown land, among other restrictions. The 1885 Chinese Immigration Act levied the head tax on Chinese immigrants who entered Canada between 1885 and 1923. It was the first legislation in Canadian history to exclude immigration on the basis of ethnic background.

During the 38-year period the tax was in effect, approximately 82,000 Chinese immigrants paid nearly $23 million in tax. Then, in 1923, the Chinese Exclusion Act banned all Chinese immigrants until its repeal in 1947. In 2006, the federal government apologized for the head tax and its other racist immigration policies explicitly targeting Chinese people.

Honourable senators, despite the racist, discriminatory and limiting policies and treatment that Chinese people have faced in Canada, there are many individuals who dedicate their life’s work to upholding and promoting Chinese culture and history in Canada today. These individuals share a common story of perseverance, determination and success, whereby they have overcome discriminatory barriers and left an indelible mark on Canadian society. I will happily highlight a small number of individuals who have accomplished this advocacy through their work in the arts.

Arlene Chan, born in Toronto, is a Chinese Canadian historian, activist, athlete and author. Through her work, she highlights the lived experiences and histories of Toronto’s Chinese community as well as important traditions for the Chinese-Canadian diaspora.

Ms. Chan serves as an adviser for the Chinese Canadian Museum, as well as Toronto Public Library’s Chinese Canadian Archive.

Lan Florence Yee, based out of Toronto and Montreal, is a visual artist and cofounder of the Chinatown Biennial. Lan’s work has been featured at countless museums and exhibits, including the Fonderie Darling, Toronto’s Museum of Contemporary Art and the Art Gallery of Ontario.

Alice Ming Wai Jim is an art historian, curator and professor at Montreal’s Concordia University, where she has held the research chair in ethnocultural art history. Ms. Jim focuses her research on diasporic art in Canada, particularly on the relationships between remix culture and place identity. A founding co-editor of the Journal of Asian Diasporic Visual Cultures and the Americas, Ms. Jim has also held the position of research fellow at the Centre of Asian Studies and the Center for the Study of Globalization and Cultures at the University of Hong Kong.

Karen Cho, born in Montreal, is a Chinese-Canadian documentary filmmaker whose credits include the award-winning 2004 National Film Board of Canada documentary entitled In the Shadow of Gold Mountain, which highlights the effects of the Chinese Exclusion Act in Canada. Her second documentary, Seeking Refuge, tells the stories of five asylum seekers who have sought refuge in Canada. This film is being used as an education and advocacy tool by the Canadian Council for Refugees, as well as other organizations and universities across the country.

Honourable senators, this is just a small sampling of Chinese Canadians who are working to elevate their own culture in the face of growing racism. As a society, we are all aware of the misguided and the unfounded aggression being inflicted on our Chinese neighbours today. Issues surrounding COVID-19, Huawei and the allegations of political interference have all ramped up racist sentiments. These issues have had the effect of “othering” our Chinese brothers and sisters in Canada, forcing them to face escalating levels of racism, discrimination and violence — things that no individual living in Canada should have to endure.

Honourable senators, racism and bias are learned behaviours. They are as unnatural as they are unacceptable. People, oftentimes children, learn these damaging behaviours around the kitchen table or within their friend groups, spending time around these narratives and coming to accept them as truth. However, this story of perpetuating racism does not need to continue. Rather, change can be brought through awareness and education, best done through our academic institutions.

For our youth, this education should be ongoing and continuous, from elementary school right to post-secondary education. However, as we know, unlearning racist behaviour is of great value and necessity for individuals of all ages, including in our society and our chamber. Just as racist attitudes and behaviours can be learned through ignorance, they can be unlearned through education, awareness and a commitment to compassion for all our brothers and sisters, regardless of the colour of their skin or their country of origin. Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: I have a question. How can this be considered the same question if this question has not yet been raised in the Senate Chamber? Given that the Commons is where this matter has been raised and not here, are you concerned that the Senate applying a procedural tactic that should be determined by the House of Commons in the event this bill makes it there would cause a dangerous precedent and interfere with the jurisdictional boundaries that stipulate that each chamber is the master of their own domain?

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, first of all, I would like to thank Senator Kutcher for bringing this bill forward.

This has been triggering for me, and that is the most important time to speak: when your voice shakes.

Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them with a rod, they will not die.

If you beat them with the rod, you will save their lives from Sheol.

That is from Proverbs 23:13-14.

The little girl of eight years old looked at her white blouse where a spot of blood had dropped from her bleeding nose. She hoped that her look of disbelief and astonishment of where the blood came from — and how it could be on her shirt — would forestall what she knew was to come. Of course, she would be blamed for the accident. She couldn’t have known she was going to have a nosebleed. She was hit with a closed fist on her back between her shoulder blades. She was a thin girl, and the fist easily found her bones. She started to cry from pain, from fear and from shame.

She was told, “Stop crying, stop crying,” with every hit of the closed fist. She knew she had to stop if she hoped the beating would stop. And for many years, it was difficult for me to cry.

Honourable senators, the following information that I share is taken from a piece entitled “I Was Spanked and I’m OK: Examining Thirty Years of Research Evidence on Corporal Punishment” by Joan E. Durrant. When we look at the advocacy and research done around the safety provided by seat belt legislation, we made that change to ensure that we no longer placed our children at undue risk. Systematic research across different countries found that seat belts reduced the risk of injuries and fatalities to drivers and occupants, which led to mandating the use of seat belts in cars. Public education campaigns accompanied these legal changes to raise public awareness of the risk.

Today, very few of us would say, “I survived without a seat belt so my child will too.”

By 2020, there were more than 100 studies on corporal punishment. They consistently show that corporal punishment places children at risk, and not one study has shown corporal punishment to have positive, long-term impacts. Corporal punishment does not promote the healthy, long-term outcomes that most parents hope to nurture, and it places children’s developmental health at risk.

Colleagues, what follows is the research on three developmental outcomes: prosocial behaviour, non-violent conflict resolution and positive mental health.

Prosocial behaviour, such as helping, sharing, co-operating and comforting, benefit others. When intrinsically motivated, these behaviours reflect empathy, altruism and compassion for others. They are key indicators that predict successful adolescent development. Prosocial development is fostered through the attachment between the child and at least one caregiver. The child learns to trust and rely upon the caregiver for support. By the age of two, the child exhibits rudimentary prosocial behaviours. Their concern for others becomes visible in their facial expressions, in their voices and sometimes in their behaviours.

Children’s capacities for behaving positively in the social world emerge from positive experiences in close relationships within the family. As children grow and inevitably act in ways that hurt others, effective parents use those opportunities to draw attention to the impacts of the child’s actions on the other person. In psychological terms, this is known as “induction,” which entails providing an explanation that helps children understand the effects of their behaviour on others.

Induction promotes internalization of values because it facilitates the child’s deep processing of their parents’ message.

What is the impact of corporal punishment on prosocial development? Parental responses that arouse stress, anxiety or fear interfere with internalization because the child’s capacity to process their parents’ message becomes impaired. The child instinctively concentrates on dealing with the perceived threat.

Punitive, threatening or painful parental and, in my case, institutional responses also undermine attachment, which is critical to moral learning. With sustained negative parenting, the child’s learning is impeded — and moral development becomes replaced by hostility and resentment.

Honourable senators, in her 2002 research on corporal punishment, Elizabeth Gershoff concluded that:

. . . corporal punishment can impel children to avoid misbehaviors in order to avoid future punishment but cannot on its own teach children the responsibility to behave independently in morally and socially acceptable ways.

Bernadette Saunders’ studies on children in Australia — these are children who were in residential school — found that children tended to experience corporal punishment as humiliating, intimidating, frightening and damaging. The children spoke of feeling powerless, vulnerable, helpless, unjustly treated and of wanting to avoid those parents or institutions.

Now imagine, colleagues, if you lived in residential school and you had no supports to counteract the negative and violent ways you were raised by complete strangers for simply demonstrating innocent, childlike behaviours. Children and adolescents were indeed powerless, vulnerable, helpless and unjustly treated by church representatives and teachers with no recourse to fairness or ability to be heard. Many learned to shut down and become invisible, which negatively impacted communication skills.

Honourable senators, another attribute that most parents hope to cultivate in their children is non-violent conflict resolution. Social scientists referred to one’s ability to read others’ emotions and use that information to guide actions, inhibiting aggressive impulses and regulating anger as emotional intelligence.

And how is this non-violent conflict resolution postured? Emotional competence depends upon the ability to recognize, identify, monitor and regulate one’s emotions rather than denying, suppressing or controlling them. These abilities grow out of a secure parent-child attachment in which children feel safe expressing their emotions and parents respond sensitively and supportively. When parents help their children connect their emotions to their growing reasoning capacities, neural pathways are formed that will become increasingly strong if they are repeatedly activated.

What is the impact of corporal punishment? When children are physically punished, they are placed in a situation where they are unable to express their emotions. They are stripped of their voice and their power of expression. Corporal punishment ends the conversation, discouraging and suppressing the child’s emotional expression. What the child learns is simply how to impose one’s will upon another person.

Every study conducted on the relationship between corporal punishment and aggression has found that corporal punishment predicts higher levels of aggression among children and youth. The aggression may be physical, verbal, relational, instrumental — whether it is intentional and planned or impulsive and reactive — direct or subtle. This aggression may be directed towards siblings, parents, peers or intimate partners or carried out in person through social groups or social media.

Longitudinal studies following a group of children over a number of years found that corporal punishment increases children’s aggression over time and has an increasingly powerful effect on anti-social behaviour as children get older.

Imagine the students in residential school who have been taught that aggression and violence are normal in relationships. Do you wonder why this engrained violence lands many Indigenous people in the prison system today? If you were taught throughout your formative years that violence in its many forms was acceptable, role modelled by nuns and priests, isn’t that what you would then role model to your children and they to theirs? This is what we call intergenerational trauma.

Honourable senators, positive mental health is an overall feeling of satisfaction with life, the capacity to enhance our enjoyment of life and a belief that we can deal with challenges as they appear. When we face adversity, we can continue moving forward if we believe that we have agency — the ability, power and efficacy — to overcome obstacles and take new directions in life. This is a part of self-determination. It was self-determination that was removed from us systematically in residential school.

Some central concepts in mental health research are coping and resilience. Coping is the capacity to manage the stress of adversity, obstacles and potential failure. Resilience is the capacity to move through and surmount adversity, processing its pain and moving forward into life.

How is positive mental health fostered? Positive mental health is developed within interpersonal relationships. A critical component is the belief that one can have an impact, elicit a response and effect change. This belief begins to form in infancy when parents respond to their baby’s cries and meet their baby’s physical and emotional needs. This is the beginning of a sense of efficacy, self-confidence and self-worth. With parents’ help, their toddlers learn and practise self-regulation within a secure and trusting relationship, as young children come to learn that they can tolerate and even master frustration and solve problems.

What is the impact of corporal punishment on mental health? The prerogative to strike is solely the parent’s. The child’s role is to submit to the punishment. This contributes to a loss of agency. The more these experiences are repeated over many years, the more powerless the child feels. This can lead to learned helplessness, a state in which the child comes to believe that they have no control over outcomes. This belief can manifest itself in anxiety, addictions, suicidal tendencies and other difficulties indicative of compromised mental health.

When I left residential school, I believed I had no agency over my life, and that is what places many of the missing and murdered women at high-risk.

In the book Decolonizing Discipline, edited by Valerie Michaelson and Joan Durrant, the editors state:

Based on British common law allowing corporal punishment “to correct what is evil in the child,” the text of Section 43 justifies the use of corporal punishment by parents and those standing in the place of parents. It has been used to defend the assault of children in homes and schools for more than a century and allowed those operating the residential schools to inflict violence on children with impunity.

Honourable senators, today we know that corporal punishment poses dangers to children’s emotional and overall development. We also know that section 43 has permitted gross physical punishment in the past. If we know that discipline is really about teaching and guidance and that we can promote children’s health and development more effectively without corporal punishment, why would we want to continue to permit it or allow children to be placed in such a vulnerable position?

Colleagues, even after section 43 of the Criminal Code is hopefully repealed, unless the underlying narratives that enable the rationalization of abuse against children are addressed, children will still be vulnerable to other manifestations of these same narrow, theological frameworks that justify the power and control of one group over another. Society needs to confront the ways that these very colonial systems that have helped to shape this country continue to enable various oppressions to this day.

Honourable senators, I urge you to support the swift passage of Bill S-251 and, by doing so, stand in support of the defenceless and vulnerable children who will greatly benefit from the progress that this bill will bring about. Kinanâskomitin.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Inquiry No. 11 concerning the historical treatment of our Chinese brothers and sisters. It is critical that we, as senators and citizens of Canada, understand how immigration policies have continued to shape racism within our country.

I want to thank Senator Woo for bringing forward this inquiry, and for highlighting the need to combat contemporary forms of exclusion and discrimination still faced by Canadians of Asian descent today.

Colleagues, in the 1983 book entitled Racial Minorities in Multicultural Canada by editors Peter S. Li and B. Singh Bolaria, author Gurcharn Basran from the University of Saskatchewan states:

Racism in Canada is not the product of the seventies and eighties. It has been practised systematically by the Canadian government and people in general from the very beginning of Canadian history. . . . It has been institutionalized throughout our history. It has been directed mainly against non-white populations in Canada. The chronology of the development of Canada immigration and ethnic policies is the chronology of the discriminatory policies followed by the Canadian government in relation to non-white populations.

The author continues:

Chinese were brought in to work on the construction of the Canadian Pacific line. It was difficult to secure white labour for this purpose. Woodsworth, in his book, Strangers Within Our Gates, points out:

“The Chinese, in any number, were first brought in when the Canadian Pacific Railway was being built, in order to work on the construction on that line when it was next to impossible to secure white labour.”

While discussing the contributions of Chinese labour to the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, or CPR, John Porter emphasizes:

Without Chinese labour the construction and completion of the CPR would have been indefinitely postponed. Not until 1962 were coloured people from Commonwealth countries looked upon as possible immigrants, except for small numbers who were allowed in to work as domestic servants, an entrance status previously held by lower class British and eastern European females.

The author continues:

There are various examples of institutionalized racism in Canada. Students of Canadian history in general, and those responsible for Canadian immigration policy in particular, are well aware of various pieces of legislation, laws, and practices that discriminate against the non-white and immigrant population. As soon as CPR construction was completed in 1885, and Chinese labour started entering into other occupations, institutional racism began in various forms. . . . A head tax of $50.00 was imposed on Chinese in 1885. It was increased to $100.00 in 1900 and $500.00 in 1903. Other Orientals were also subjected to a head tax, while passage assistance was available to the British immigrants. Chinese and East Indians had to pay a head tax in Canada and their immigration was virtually stopped after 1907. Orientals had no voting rights until World War II and were not allowed to practise certain professions in British Columbia. According to the 1906 Immigration Act, important discretionary powers were given to immigration officers, who used them against non-white immigrants in a ruthless and discriminatory manner. . . . There were race riots in British Columbia in 1907, in which Orientals were attacked and their properties, businesses, and houses destroyed.

In 1907 immigrants from Asia were required to have a minimum of $200.00 in landing money. In 1919 this account was increased to $250.00. In 1930, section 38 of the Immigration Act prohibited the landing in Canada of immigrants of any Asiatic race.

Honourable senators, the following information that I’m going to share with you is based on research done by the Library of Parliament. The first major wave of Chinese immigration began with the Fraser River Gold Rush in 1858. From 1881 to 1885, more than 15,000 Chinese labourers came to work on the construction of the CPR. Over the course of construction and by the end of 1882, 6,500 of the 9,000 railway workers were Chinese Canadians. They were employed to build the B.C. segment of the railway through the most challenging and dangerous terrain.

Chinese workers were paid a dollar a day, and, from this dollar, they had to pay for their food and gear. White workers were paid $1.50 to $2.50 per day and did not have to pay for provisions. In addition to being paid less while also incurring higher expenses, Chinese workers were given the most dangerous tasks, such as handling the explosive nitroglycerine used to break up solid rock. Due to the harsh conditions they faced, hundreds of Chinese Canadians working on the railroad died from accidents, winter cold, illness and malnutrition. Between 600 and 4,000 Chinese men died working on the CPR.

Although Chinese-Canadian workers faced and overcame great obstacles to help build the CPR, they were left out of the national celebration surrounding its completion. In the iconic and historic photograph of CPR director Donald Alexander Smith driving the ceremonial Last Spike — when the western and eastern segments of the CPR finally met in Craigellachie, British Columbia — all of the Chinese-Canadian workers were cleared from view.

Many people have pointed out the lingering injustice captured in that image. There is not a single Chinese-Canadian worker in the photograph, even though Chinese-Canadian labourers suffered, toiled and died building the railway that has come to symbolize the unity of Canada from coast to coast.

Prime Minister John A. Macdonald acknowledged the necessity of Chinese labour. When the Government of British Columbia tried to ban Chinese immigration in 1882, Macdonald rose in the House of Commons.