Senator Mary Jane McCallum

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Senator Boyer’s Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), which proposes to amend section 268 of the Criminal Code. Section 268 addresses aggravated assault offences, and Bill S-250 creates an offence for sterilization without consent.

I want to thank Senator Boyer and her office for their dedicated work as they listened deeply to the experiences of the survivors of forced and coerced sterilization. Doing that type of work takes courage, tenacity, focus and perseverance to bring these unconscionable actions out of the darkness and into the light.

I would like to begin by harkening back to September 2022. I recall that date, as it brought to me the consciousness that I was in a position of privilege in several ways. I remember looking at all of the senators in the chamber. I realized then that I would never want to be with another group of senators than this collective and that I had so much to be thankful for, walking part of my earth journey with you. I thought back to moments where there were acts of kindness and compassion demonstrated towards me: a senator lugging my heavy suitcase up three flights of stairs because the elevator wasn’t working; a senator whose eyes twinkled as I reached out for his support; a senator whom I saw, through someone else’s words, that they were the greatest boss; a senator who let me know they were available if I needed someone to listen to me; and the senators who would give up their time to accommodate me during Senators’ Statements.

In that moment of reflection, I thought back to the senators who are passionate about their issues and bringing them to the floor to educate us and increase our awareness of matters important to them and their regions; to the senators who took the time to do research so they could speak to First Nations issues that were previously unfamiliar terrain; to the votes to meaningfully advance First Nations’ rights.

Thank you to all those senators and staff who model values and principles such as truth, compassion, courage, justice, bravery, eloquence, balance, conciliation, patience, sharing and grace, for, in doing so, they remind me of our shared humanity. One of the teachings of First Nations is that everyone we meet helps to shape us into doing and being better. You did that for me.

Honourable senators, I would like you to think back to your varied accomplishments over your lifetime and during your time in the Senate. Imagine the transformative change that you have been involved in within your work in your communities, provinces and nationally in making meaningful change for the people who reached out to you and those whom you represent.

Now imagine all the people across the country and their accomplishments and contributions to help Canada become a country that is inclusive and just.

Now imagine that some of us in this chamber and many others across Canada had their lives terminated before they even began. How different my world would be if I hadn’t met many of you. Imagine that the invaluable contributions to the community, the inherent and spiritual right to life were eradicated because of the forced sterilization of their mothers. Imagine the many lights that were extinguished before they had the God-given opportunity to burn bright. We are indeed privileged that our mothers’ right to creation was not extinguished.

Honourable senators, I will speak to the unique situation of First Nations, Métis and Inuit women, as they were specifically targeted in Canadian society because of the false notion of racial inferiority.

The quotes in my speech come from the book entitled An Act of Genocide: Colonialism and the Sterilization of Aboriginal Women, published by Karen Stote in 2015.

As an example, in 1945, the clinical records of Essondale Hospital stated:

This mentally defective young woman[’s] . . . social background reveals a history of promiscuity, venereal disease, tuberculosis and one illegitimate pregnancy . . . Because of limited intelligence, lack of supportive family supervision and a propensity for illicit sexual behaviour, her rehabilitation through the auspices of the Indian Affairs Department, is most problematical . . . it is, therefore, desirable to offer her the protection of sexual sterilization . . . While she will undoubtedly continue to be a social problem on discharge from this hospital, sexual sterilization would prevent her from having further children who might become social problems.

Colleagues, people relegated to live in the shadows because of colonization, colonialism, racism and sexism live an injustice in that they are placed in vulnerable, powerless and voiceless positions. How else could a violent activity like forced sterilization be practised for so long and without repercussions for those who make such unilateral, inhumane and egregious decisions?

Honourable senators, fundamentally, assimilation is the imposition of one particular way of life at the expense and destruction of another. Such assimilation enables the stripping from Aboriginal women of the ability to control their reproduction and denies them the opportunity to raise their children in their cultural ways of life.

In 1883, while discussing the education scheme being laid out for Aboriginal peoples, Member of Parliament Edward Blake highlighted the importance of targeting Indian girls. His statement illustrates that racist ideology played a role in justifying Indian policy:

If [we] leave the young Indian girl who is to mature into a squaw to have the uncivilized habits of the tribe, the Indian, when he married such a squaw, will likely be pulled into Indian savagery by her. If this scheme is going to succeed at all, you will . . . have to civilize the intended wives . . . I have known . . . how difficult it is to eradicate that hereditary taint.

Colleagues, as stated by Senator Boyer and echoed by Senator Simons, sterilization was enacted in provincial law in Alberta and also in British Columbia.

In Alberta, the Sexual Sterilization Act was in effect from 1928 to 1972. During this time, the eugenics board passed 4739 cases for sterilization. Of these, 2834 sterilization operations were performed. In a study of patient files by Timothy Christian, patients most likely to be presented and approved for sterilization occupied socially marginalized positions. Those most likely to fit this categorization . . . were Aboriginal peoples. When opposition to the Act gained momentum and its repeal became more likely, the rate at which Aboriginal peoples were sterilized underwent a terrific increase, representing over 25% of those sterilized. Christian says:

It is incredible that between 1969 and 1972, more Indian and Metis persons were sterilized than British, especially when it is considered that Indians or Metis were the least significant racial group statistically and British the most significant.

Amendments to the Act increased the likelihood that Aboriginal peoples would be subject to sterilization. In 1937, the consent for mental defectives was excised. This amendment allowed the Eugenics Board to compel the sterilization of any patient it defined as mentally defective and who was likely to transmit this defectiveness to his/her progeny. Grekul and her colleagues estimate that 77% of Aboriginal patients presented to the Board were diagnosed as mentally defective [and] no longer had much say in whether they would be sterilized.

Colleagues, the author continues:

The sterilization of Aboriginal peoples under the Alberta Sterilization Act was recognized as having the potential to cause problems in the future. . . . It does not appear the Department was necessarily motivated by any humanitarian or legal concern for Aboriginal peoples, but more with avoiding a charge that bears a resemblance to genocide . . . .

The Department of Indian Affairs stated:

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Indians might get an impression that there was a conspiracy for the elimination of the race by this means.

The Department’s failure to issue a statement condemning the sterilization of Aboriginal peoples is to condone the practice and can be read as an acknowledgement that, at the very least, it knew the practice was taking place.

The Department stated that it had:

. . . no objections to the laws of the province being carried out and any action taken in accordance will not meet disapproval.

In this same year, 1942, another amendment to the act was made that exempted from future civil action any person who took part in a surgical procedure, or any authoritative figure working in a mental institution and who was involved in a recommendation for sterilization. The proportion of Aboriginal peoples sterilized by the act rose steadily from 1939 onward, tripling from 1949 to 1959. Despite the stipulation that consent be obtained, it was only sought in 17% if Aboriginal cases overall.

In 1951 an amendment was also made to the Indian Act that increased the application of provincial laws to Indians . . . . This amendment included the first definition of a mentally incompetent Indian as one defined according to the laws of a province in which “he” resides. In other words, a mentally incompetent Indian was whatever a province deemed him or her to be.

Honourable senators, having the privilege to create life connects us to humanity, our families, communities, our environment and our ancestors.

Elder Rarihokwats, in the book entitled Quest for Respect, states:

The elders speak of the “Seventh Generation” of the seven generations of Spirit coming towards us, the ones who will ask about us, wanting to know what we did to prepare the world in which they were to arrive and live.

You will remember I acknowledge my First Nations ancestors with the perseverance, determination and sober second thought in how they fought so that we, as the seventh generation, would not remain in the same deplorable state that was imposed on them by policies and legislation coordinated between the federal government and the churches. This included their exclusion from entering the grounds of Parliament Hill.

Colleagues, this is why I hold so dearly my responsibilities to bring truth to this sacred chamber — in this case, truth about the genocide of Aboriginal peoples.

The question for Canadians and parliamentarians now is how our country, which has supposedly made decades-long progress on women’s rights, could have hidden or not acknowledged this crime?

Colleagues, this bill criminalizes genocidal activity. It must transcend the political bartering that occurs with the leadership in Senate. I urge you to stand together against this horrific practice of forced sterilization and its implications towards genocide and stand in support of Bill S-250 receiving its vote.

Kinanâskomitin.