By Mark Milke

The effort by MP Leah Gazan to criminalize residential school views she labels “denialist” is a mistake. Gazan’s Bill C-413, if passed, would criminalize any statement that might be interpreted as “condoning, denying, downplaying or justifying the Indian residential school system in Canada through statements communicated other than in private conversation.”

Let’s start with examples of whose speech Gazan’s bill would criminalize, if repeated in the future: indigenous Canadians who have publicly “condoned,” or at least partly justified, residential schools.

In 1998, Rita Galloway, a teacher who grew up on the Pelican Lake First Nation in Saskatchewan and then-president of the First Nations Accountability Coalition, was interviewed about residential schools. She noted that she had “many friends and relatives who attended residential schools,” and argued, “Of course there were good and bad elements, but overall, their experiences were positive.”

In 2008, the late Richard Wagamese, an Ojibwe author and journalist, wrote in the Calgary Herald about the many abuses that took place at residential schools. He then straightforwardly argued that positive stories needed to be told, too, including his mother’s.

After praising her neat, clean home and cultured lawn on a reserve outside Kenora, Ont., Wagamese noted how his 75-year-old mother “credits the residential school experience with teaching her domestic skills.” Critically, “My mother has never spoken to me of abuse or any catastrophic experience at the school.”

Wagamese argued the then-forthcoming Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) “needs to hear those kinds of stories, too,” and that telling “the good along with the bad” will “create a more balanced future for all of us.”

That’s not because such schools were perfect — or even optimal. As has been extensively documented, physical and sexual abuses occurred in some schools, and that is something that no one should downplay.

But it’s too easy to forget the limited choices that existed for 19th- and early 20th-century Canadians. As we do today, most people back then believed in the value of universal education. Many Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous, lived in poverty, had rudimentary transportation links, limited job opportunities and thus limited possibilities for day schools in remote areas, such as reserves.

Imagine the outcry today if earlier generations of parishioners, parents (including Indigenous parents) and politicians mostly ignored remote reserves and failed to provide indigenous communities with educational opportunities. The same voices today who accept no nuance on residential schools would likely excoriate that choice to deny education to Indigenous children.

The choices in the 19th and 20th centuries were not between perfection and its opposite; they represent a trade-off between suboptimal choices. Understanding this requires nuance, which is in short supply these days.

As an example, consider the perspective of Manitoba school trustee Paul Coffey, a Metis man who made a presentation to the Mountain View School Division board meeting in Dauphin, Man., about racism in April and was pilloried for it. His remarks included comments about residential schools. Coffey tried to argue that residential schools had good and bad aspects, but he was roundly criticized for his views.

In a July interview, Coffey again offered nuance about the schools, noting what much of the media missed in their initial firestorm coverage: “I said they were nice. I then also said they weren’t. I said treaties were nice and then they weren’t. I said even TRC is a good idea, until it isn’t.”

Criminalizing these stories and opinions would mean that these three indigenous voices, and many others, could face fines or jail time. This is precisely why speech, unless urging violence, should never be criminalized.

Another reason not to criminalize speech is because it makes it even more difficult to correct bad ideas and lingering injustices. An open society requires open discourse. It’s the only way errors can only be corrected. That disappears if one becomes subject to fines and imprisonment for thinking out loud, including when one is ultimately proved to be in error.

Gazan’s bill is the latest attempt by Canadian politicians to suppress views and conclusions with which they disagree. That suppression is illiberal and unhelpful. Mandating a single point of view damages the accumulation of knowledge that’s necessary for progress, prevents a useful dissection of why abuses occurred in residential schools and will prevent the open discrediting of wrongheaded positions.

No one person will be right every time. Open, public debate is critical to exposing errors and advancing human progress.

Mark Milke is the president of the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Positive stories about Indian Residential Schools must also be heard

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is pleased to announce the release of a thought-provoking new report titled Positive Stories of Indian Residential Schools Must Also be Heard by Hymie Rubenstein and James C. McCrae. This report challenges the dominant narrative surrounding Canada’s Indian Residential Schools, advocating for a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of their historical legacy.

In Positive Stories of Indian Residential Schools Must Also be Heard, Rubenstein and McCrae critically examine the current portrayal of the residential school system, which is often overwhelmingly negative. The authors argue that this narrative fails to acknowledge the positive experiences of many former students and the genuine intentions of those who worked within the system. While not dismissing the testimonies of abuse, the report emphasizes that these accounts do not represent the full spectrum of experiences at the schools.

The report highlights several stories of individuals who credit their time in residential schools with shaping their successful futures. For instance, Len Marchand, Canada’s first status Indian member of parliament and a federal cabinet minister, attended the Kamloops (BC) Indian Residential School and spoke highly of the education he received there. In his memoir, Breaking Trail, he noted that his time at the school inspired his desire to help his people through education.

Similarly, Tomson Highway, a celebrated Canadian playwright and composer, described his years at Guy Hill Indian Residential School in Manitoba as “nine of the best years of my life.” His parents chose to send him to the school, believing it would provide better opportunities for their children. The skills Highway acquired, including classical piano, were instrumental in his later achievements.

Reverend Canon Stan Cuthand, an Indigenous Anglican priest who served as a chaplain at several residential schools, also offers a positive perspective. He recalled that the schools were not “terrible places” and praised the efforts of staff who worked to protect and nurture the children, even integrating Indigenous culture into the curriculum.

As students return to classrooms this fall, the topic of residential schools has taken a central role in many curricula across the country. However, there is concern that some teachers focus solely on the “horrors” of these institutions or even frame Canada as a genocidal state, leaving little room for a balanced discussion. This report urges educators to offer a more nuanced view that includes both the positive and negative aspects of the residential school system. Stories like those of Tomson Highway and Len Marchand demonstrate that not every experience was one of trauma, and some students went on to achieve remarkable success as a result of their education.

The report also touches on the experiences of Lea Meadows, whose mother, Elsie McLaren Meadows, had a positive experience at the Brandon (Manitoba) Indian Residential School. Inspired by her time there, Elsie became a teacher and later worked in similar schools. Meadows argues that it is unjust to label all who worked at these schools as abusers, recognizing that many were dedicated to the well-being and education of the children.

Moreover, the report cites instances where Indigenous communities themselves supported the continuation of residential schools. For example, in 1970, Alberta’s Saddle Lake First Nation residents successfully protested the closure of Blue Quills School, taking control of the institution themselves. Similarly, in 1971, eight Saskatchewan bands advocated for the Marieval Indian Residential School to remain open, emphasizing its importance for children from challenging home environments.

Positive Stories of Indian Residential Schools Must Also be Heard is a timely and significant contribution to the ongoing debate about the legacy of the residential school system. It encourages Canadians to consider all perspectives in the pursuit of truth and reconciliation, acknowledging both the positive and negative aspects of this complex history.

Download the backgrounder here. (10 pages)

About the Authors:

• Hymie Rubenstein is the editor of REAL Indigenous Report. A retired professor of anthropology, he served as a board member and taught for many years at St. Paul’s College, University of Manitoba, the only Roman Catholic higher education institution in Manitoba.
• James C. McCrae is a former attorney general of Manitoba and Canadian citizenship judge.