The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - A Bridge Encore Special on Residential Schools

Episode Date: September 30, 2026

For Canada's National Day of Truth and Reconciliation, we revisit interviews with the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. How to navigate the road forward, and how to discover the truth. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. This is the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. And here at Sirius XM, we are asked and we ask you to think about truth and reconciliation. It's a statutory holiday here at this workplace. And so as a result on this Wednesday, we are going to do a special encore broadcast. From a program we did, well, a little more than five years ago now, it was a special on the residential school situation. The stories changed somewhat since then,

but there's no harm in looking back to what we talked about with two very special guests on that day. One was Mark Miller, who at that time was the Minister of Indigenous Affairs. Today, he's still in the cabinet of the government of today, but he's the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. But then he was the Minister responsible for indigenous issues. The other guest was Murray Sinclair, who was the chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that traveled across the country, made its report, made its recommendations.

And so at this time, in 2021, it was interesting to talk to both of these gentlemen. sadly, Murray Sinclair, who I'd known for a long time back to my Manitoba days in the 1970s, sadly he has passed away a couple of years ago now in 2024. So keep in mind, this is a five-year-old program. Things have changed. But it is very interesting to listen to the concerns of both these guests back five years ago. So here we are, an encore adapt. So take care.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. Yes, I know I'm supposed to be on hiatus. And I will be very shortly. But I'm the kind of guy that when news happens, when stories leap towards the forefront, I want to be there for part of it. And that's exactly what's happening on this bridge special on the residential schools question. As you heard over the weekend, much discussion about the latest find, if you will, in terms of unmarked graves, this time in Saskatchewan at the Marival.

Residential school, the former residential school, where in this case more than 700 unmarked graves were found. The Camloops situation where there were more than 200 unmarked graves found just a couple of weeks ago. So this once again has the question, what do we do now? Two conversations for this special edition of the bridge. One with Justice Murray Sinclair, who was the man in charge, the chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. His comments coming up a little later. First off, though, the Minister for Indigenous Services, His name is Mark Miller.

He comes from Montreal. He's a relatively young guy. He just turned 50. He was first elected to the House of Commons in 2015. He sat as a backbench MP for a while, then as a parliamentary secretary, and then after the 2019 election, the Prime Minister put Mark Miller in the cabinet with responsibilities around the indigenous services question. Now, as I said, he's a young guy, grew up in the Montreal area. He's been very committed to indigenous issues before, in fact, committed to enough to actually learn, in part, the Mohawk language, which is one of the dominant indigenous languages in the Montreal area. So Mark Miller has been on a hot seat, if you wish, on this subject around residential schools and the news that has broken.

over the last few weeks. And so here, first off, is our interview with Mark Miller. Well, Minister, by all accounts, you've had a pretty good relationship with the indigenous leaders that you deal with since the Prime Minister put you in the job a couple of years ago. How difficult has it been since Camloops, since Maravelle and Saskatchewan, since those two stories have gone public for you to talk with those same leaders? It's been very painful. I think, you know, as Canadians are waking up from this sort of collective amnesia or willful blindness, whatever you want to call it,

everyday lived experience for survivors and successive generations that are getting triggered. And so if you're in a position of leadership in that community, you're probably scrambling to figure out how you best put that voice of your people that is in deep pain to to words or to or from, you know, media requests. And I've heard a range of, thoughts and views and tears on this. And it's, it's a very, very difficult time for, for indigenous peoples across the country and not just those that have

their kids sent to Camloops or ripped from the hands of their families to Camloops or, or in Calasus or Brandon or anywhere around the country, but for any indigenous community for this it's a reopening of wounds that they thought were closed. So leaders are in a very, very difficult position because people are looking to them for answers and the reality is there are far too few. And that's, you know, all I can do is as a minister of indigenous services, not indigenous, still very much learning on this file is to be there for them. Financially, obviously, we've said so loud and clear this is a government that has

to put large financial supports to indigenous communities, but also stand aside or behind these communities as they take that difficult decision to figure out what they do with these sites that are both sacred and crime scenes at the same time. So the views range from different ends of the spectrum of wanting to let things rest to wanting answers now. But what we know particularly in a time where there is,

this thirst for immediate answers is that this will take time. And I think that's what's frustrating for a lot of people. Well, I can certainly see how difficult it is for the indigenous leaders you're dealing with. I guess what I'm trying to get out is how awkward is it for you. I mean, after all, the federal government, as you have readily admitted, is partly the blame for this. So suddenly you're now in these discussions and you're kind of accountable on the one side of this discussion. So it must make it awkward at least to be involved in the discussion. Yeah, and look, I think most recently about some of the discussions I've had with Chief

Camus DeLorum of Cauticus who readily and acknowledges that we've, we are both inherited this and are responsible for it, absolutely. I'm new to this game. I've been a minister for less than two years. For me, it seems much longer because we've navigated a once in a century. pandemic. That relationship that I've been able to build over the last year has helped. But, you know, it's very difficult for anyone to be able to talk to someone who is in grieving, who has had relatives that have gone through the system that are reliving these experience.

So I say clearly as clearly as I can that we're there for them. And if you need us to get out of the way, we'll get out of the way. If you need us to give you space, we'll give you space. And if you need help, we'll give you help. you know, maybe the silver lining and going through a global pandemic where indigenous communities from a purely statistical perspective

have done better perhaps than expected, there's been a bit of trust that we've been able to build on. So there is some positive. Who should take the lead on this? You know, because there is a conflict of sorts, you know, who should take the lead in trying to move forward on this issue?

Yeah, and I don't want to be sensationalist on this, but essentially you can't ask the federal government or the perpetrator to investigate the crime. It just goes against everything, you know, proper investigations. We are responsible for this. The church is responsible for this. But we do have to be, you know,

the central turning point for resources help. The Truth in Reconciliation Commission is quite clear that the community is most affected by the particular residential school. school have to be in a position to take the lead. And for us, that means continuing respectfully engage with communities. And it can be obviously financial assets. It can be, as you know, shutting down airspace in and around Camelops for the curious

that have gone in with their drones to take pictures and uninvited, or providing special forensic archaeological support from the Canadian Armed Forces. And then depending on what the need is, whether it's commemoration or investigations of crime scenes to provide all the resources documentation that those communities need to get some sort of closure. This is, you know, there's an exercise in accountability, but before that there is most importantly an exercise in truth, mostly for the survivors who are looking for closure. There's a, I just add that, you know, there have been asks of a variety of ranges from

UN investigation to, you know, federally led investigative process. we can absolutely set something up, but it has to come at the direct request of those communities or a core group of communities with affected sites. And are those requests coming in? They're slowly coming in, Peter. What's coming in most consistently is our needs in and around supports financial,

but also mental health supports for communities, long-term asks around more mental health supports. We're in the middle of not only the tail end of a pen, pandemic that has been difficult on people's mental health, but also an opioid crisis across the country. So those needs are even more pressing because these are sort of compounding triggers. But they do range. You know, the requests that we have coming in are principally around reopening some older investigations.

A lot of these communities that are doing these sometimes with their own funds, sometimes with ours and not enough over time. So it is something that does take time. Camloops, they had been working on it for decades that Mohawk Institute in six nations, for example, has been looking at this ever since the school closed, and they've had sort of fits and starts. This is always a very painful issue for the community to go through, and people have different views within the communities, nonetheless, the survivors.

So it's a range of things. We're really, I would say, sadly, very much at the infancy of getting to that ultimate point, which is one of accountability. Can I just ask a question on the answer. actual sites, the unmarked graves. What is your view on what the end should be on that? Do these bodies need to be exhumed? Do they need to be identified?

Do they need some form of analysis on trying to determine how these mainly children died? The answer that I'll give you is perhaps uncomfortable for people to hear, but the fact that I don't know. And I don't think, more importantly, communities have a full sense of where they want to go. People want answers. This is fundamentally a collective expression of pain that can take different directions, all natural, but somewhat unpredictable. I can share some of the views I've received. One is one of commemoration.

One is, in some sense, honoring to achieve closure. One is an exercise in getting more answers. The Truth in Reconciliation Commission came up with a rough number of about 3,000 young souls that had perished. That number could easily double. And if you listen to the words of Marie Sinclair could go up to 15,000 and perhaps even more, depending on the site. So in all that is a lack of knowledge and clarity. And I think there is a recognition that we won't necessarily get the entirety of the truth. But there has to be more effort put in to search.

for it if the community wants it. And on the other end of the spectrum, I've heard communities in a very painful way, reach out to me and say, we want to let those sites lie. We don't want to be digging up our ancestors. As young as those souls were, there are very many survivors that are in a position

where they are trying, they don't even want to relive those memories because they are so painful, but they are in a position of having to calm down their own youth. who want those answers. And there's nothing more difficult than to be in one of those communities where there is that range of views and some people that are getting triggered. I mean, the search for the truth is a deep psychological process.

But as many people know, repressing the truth is sometimes an act of self-preservation. And that is something that we are reckoning with. And as we do in all things, dealing with mental health and the government, we do so quite poorly. So when you ask me that question, what do we do? I don't know. I think certainly there's a quest for answers and a quest for closure. Any survivor that those that are courageous to speak about it openly will say that there is a search for closure. And then there's another process of accountability, all imperfect, but ones that we can't give up effort on.

And I think that's where our government has a role to play, albeit in the background letting those communities leave. You know, some believe that some of the answers, some of the truth in this lies in documentation. You mentioned documentation a moment ago, both the federal government and the Catholic Church, and we'll get to the church in a minute, but both the federal government and the church do have documents. Are you satisfied, A, that you've seen all the documentation

that Ottawa holds and that it's all being released or close to being released? No, I don't know, but I don't have, again, I don't have that answer either. We know historically that tons and tons of documents were destroyed in the 30s and 40s. And Health Canada, the health departments also destroyed documents, whether it was conscious or an act of a document retention procedure gone awry. Delibered or not, those documents aren't there anymore. We know that. That's been properly documented. A good chunk of the documentation was turned over to the truth and reconciled.

Commission in Winnipeg. So there is a central repository for what is known and was largely documented in the various tomes of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission report. But it is incomplete. There is a big piece of the puzzle that does lie within the churches, particularly the Catholic Church. And that documentation is still outstanding to a large extent. I don't think that when it comes to these egregious acts of, if it was murder or murder, or gross acts of negligence that that was meticulously documented. But at the same time, I think there still are,

there's still as a good chunk of documentation that is outstanding. I'm looking at my own ministry to see what our document retention policies are, to see if there's anything left, that it just doesn't matter of clarity. But again, in that search for truth, I don't know if we get to everything, but I think there is a lot more work to do in not only looking at our own institutions, but pushing the Catholic Church in particular since it's been the target of this with the lack of a full accounting and apology, as well as some reticence in turning over documentation in certain orders.

Now I have seen progress in the last couple weeks with the oblasts in particular willing to turn over documentation. But again, I think no one will be satisfied until it has actually turned over and parsed through. as for the church the prime minister weighed in quite heavily on friday about the pope and desiring that the pope come to canada make a formal apology i assume you're in agreement with the with that position what do you think the chances are of that actually happening i mean what kind he says that he the prime minister says he's talked directly with the with the vatican and with the pope about this so they obviously know the desire is there. What do you think the odds are of that actually happening?

I'm not holding my breath, but I know that that outreach has been made and it is long overdue. It is the last church really to do a full and continue accounting. The Anglicans have the church has. Would it make a difference? Would it make a difference?

You know, initially I didn't think it would, but I've heard from too many indigenous. groups about whether they are themselves Kaferton, the importance of acknowledging the harm done and asking for forgiveness as really the starting point in an operation in closure. And so I do take those words seriously. There are many indigenous groups who do not, or individuals who don't care, but there are many who do care.

And this is, again, an operation of acknowledgement of harm done. And I feel that the fact that that has not been properly, fully done in the proper way continues to cause the wounds to fester. I'm Protestant myself. I have difficulty speaking publicly about my faith, so I can imagine a lot of people have that as well. So calling out a church goes against everything I would want to do publicly, but I do feel this is a long time coming.

There's no reason why this hasn't been done. And fundamentally, it isn't an issue, I believe, with the Pope himself, but internal politics for the Catholic Church that lie squarely within the Council of Bishops in Canada. That's interesting. You think the Pope, if he had totally his own way, would be here doing this, making an apology? I believe so.

You know, I've followed Pope Francis, at least with some, as intense as a casual observer could be of the inner workings of the Catholic Church. And I see someone of the cares. that wants to make a difference and wants to reform a church that has had challenging, has that challenges, and challenges dealing with the issues of the day. I believe that has been solved for a number of other reasons within Canada. I don't think those reasons,

when I look at them at any level of scrutiny or acceptable. What is your advice to Canadians who are, you know, who are clearly many of them? I'd say the majority are clearly troubled by this. In terms of, you know, what they should be thinking, what they should be doing.

And I guess more importantly, what's your advice to Canadians who either don't care or who are in some form of denial? I'm sure you've heard it, and I've heard it a moment ago you use the term murder as a possibility on a number of these cases.

And gosh, when that word is used, I know on my program, there's outrage from people who are outraged about this story, but they say, hey, there's no proof of murder. You know, it could it be cholera, it could be this, it could be that. And it's all wrong and it's all bad and it's unmarked graves and that's not acceptable.

But using that term is going, you know, a mile too far. Well, there's documented stories and the truth and reconciliation report. I mean, it's funny that we're fundamentally that people that raped a whole heck of a lot of stuff down but never remember anything. And the Truth and Reconciliation report had detailed documentation stories. And indigenous peoples will tell you, that their stories have been denied and called all sorts of things that they were just wrong. And if you were to even believe a fraction of them,

that we would never come to the conclusion that murder was involved, close negligence, reckless endangerment, any legal term in the book that you'd want to throw at them. There's no excuse to say that the Spanish flu or tuberculosis was a hiccup of history, or the religion was a hiccum of history for that matter. Clearly in Egerton-Ruyerson's treaties, the religion was used to cleanse the quote-unquote Indian from the person. When it comes to tuberculosis in Spanish, through the living conditions that were imposed as well as starvation,

well documented, were an act of systemic racism. Tuberculosis behaves in a way that any viral, out any disease would, which means it spreads in closed conditions. And that's the horrible living conditions. These people lived and they were treated with neglect while they were in these schools. So these are all part and parcel of a plan to turn people into something that they weren't in our image. And that is something we need to reckon with.

I look at, I look back at my own ignorance, this certainly wasn't taught to me in school. I can imagine prior generations that it wasn't either. In fact, I know. But I do see it in current generations in school. My own children have told me about what they are being taught. So I do have hope. I am conscious of the fact that as, you know,

non-indigenous Canada, parts of non-indigenous Canada was from their collective amnesia, that that grief cannot be there. And for layered on people that are already grieving and asked them to bear it from us. I think we have a duty to continue to educate ourselves. And that's a very painful thing because we do have, I love my country. I love what I believe my country would be.

But as you read these reports, you say to yourself, what is that identity? What is it belief? And that reckoning is quite painful, particularly as we approach a day that lots of people left to celebrate Canada Day. So we continue to have a job to educate ourselves. again, far too often that education process has been on indigenous peoples to continue to remind us of what's gone on and what they live through every day, whether it's interaction with the police, whether it's interaction with the healthcare system as a current on going with experience. Those are things that we suddenly express collective outrage when we see the most egregious iterations out of the front page,

but it's a daily lived experience for many indigenous peoples. And that's a learning process that was completely elitiveness to growing up. You mentioned Canada Day. You know, there are some communities in the country that aren't going to celebrate it this year because they feel, you know, at best awkward over this situation and what it says about us as a country and perhaps we aren't quite what we thought we were as a result of finding these stories out. Where are you on that?

Do you acknowledge the fact that there are some jobs? just don't want to celebrate in the way we have in the past? Yeah, I get it. I mean, I wonder if I spent Canada today in a pretty, you know, I'll do a parade or so. And, you know, most of us turn on Corey Harder. I was the same thing or something. So perhaps it's time to turn the volume down a bit and start to wreck it about where a country really is. I think it's, you know, everyone likes a good celebration.

But the reality is there are people in this country that are hurting and suffering. We have to recognize that, particularly with very, very acute events that have been publicized over the last month. So it is a time per reflection. I do believe, though, that as a country, it is a sign of maturity that you can look at yourself and say, hey, we're not, we need to start me thinking about what we are and what we've done and how we move forward together. I don't think this is necessarily an exercise in examining polar opposites. I don't think necessarily we need to turn this into a battle

against quote-unquote cancel culture because you have people that are really really hurting and this is a time in the year where some people would like to go out and watch the fireworks listen to music and eat a hot dog but it is a time for me that I will spend reflecting with indigenous groups

that last to spend some time and discuss this with me and that's what I'll do And I think if I were giving a recommendation to anyone wanting to sell a candidate, it's to take a moment and think about what we are, what we are as a country. And then obviously how we move forward. You've mentioned Murray Sinclair a number of times

and obviously his report, which is now six years ago. I'm going to be talking to Murray Sinclair a little later in this hour for a moment. His report came down. There were 94 recommendations or calls for action, as what he called, called them. For us as a country to follow, if we were going to head towards some form of reconciliation. You know, there are different verdicts on how much of that 94

has actually been followed or is being worked on without going through the list. What's your sense of how much of those calls for action of actually being taken? You know, there's a lot of them. They're not, in a sense, all identical and equal. There are ones that require long-term action and reform. And I think foremost, the stuff that my ministry has to work on,

child and family services. And that is one where we've passed the law, but the work and the reform continues, as well as some very painful lawsuits. They're immensely complex lawsuits. If you look at the ones that are of the direct federal government's responsibility, which aren't, they aren't all, obviously, the apology for the opponent is not something the federal government can do itself. It can certainly influence.

The rule we weren't with is that 80% of them are underway. There are a number that are completed the citizenship oath most recently. the passing and royal assent of the United Nations Declaration and Rights of Indigenous people. Very, very important. So I guess, you know, in a month where it's very difficult to think about reconciliation without continuing to focus on the truth, the reality is that this has been slow, but ones that we continue to work on, the Prime Minister, made that promise. It is a promise that he still continues to reiterate.

but it isn't without realizing that there have been challenges in getting done. But the ones that underscore how difficult they are, I mean, one of the most insidious forms of legacies of colonization is the continued discrimination in and around the socioeconomic gaps that I am tasked as part of my mandate to close. That's gaps in education, gaps in infrastructure, gaps in health care. And those were on display during this pandemic where we mobilized the armed forces,

billions of dollars to help indigenous communities get ahead of the curve. And when it comes to vaccination levels, they stay ahead, particularly in second doses. But it doesn't change the underlying factors that created that. And that continues to be an insidious form of violence in this country, that we have to continue to close. This government has tremendously put tens of billions.

I think I don't know the tally, but we're north of 40 to continue to close those gaps in their closing. But the progress is always slow. Indigenous language vitalization where that test is measured in generations and not four-year electoral cycles are ones that we'll have to continue to invest in. I'm very proud of the language laws that we passed in the end of the last mandate, but that will continue to require investments in it. And the test of the vitality of a language is measured over 10 or 20.

years and not sort of before your electoral cycle. So those are ones we continue to work on, and I'm actually proud that the Prime Minister continues to invest and reinvest in this. And it's a lot of political capital. It's a lot of financial capital. But I think it's what Canadians fundamentally want us to. I've only got a couple of minutes left. Two questions.

You mentioned about how your kids are learning things at school on this issue, which is good, because you and I both know there's been generations of, Never did, never heard anything about this. If you could write a sentence, a sentence or two at most, on what reconciliation looks like? What would that be? It's been because I give long answers. So you're putting it on the spot to try and to move it.

I always go back to what my close friend in part of it, Michael Cloud sent to me when I was, when I was named minister, and that is, you know, he looked at me, he said, it'll be fine if you shut up and listen. And I've taken that to heart. I think we need to listen more. And that isn't an exercise in being passive.

It's actually very difficult for a politician. You know, we live and die by the words that are about it. But, you know, listening will, listening and understanding will move us forward more than empty words. And I take that to heart in any engagement that I have with as painful as it is with indigenous people. So I don't know if that's one sentence, Peter. Hey, it's good advice. It's good advice for a lot of people on a lot of different things. Here's the last question.

And, you know, I'm sure you've been asked at times this before. But I've always founded a puzzle of somebody who spent half a century, which is only a third of our history, you know, covering this story in many, different places and having lived in remote parts of northern Canada. I've seen it close up. But here's the question. Why do you think we've never had an indigenous affairs minister? And is that right?

Is that a wrong in itself? Yeah. And I can't imagine the weight that would be on someone's shoulder. that will be asked to do this. I know most recently that was a position that was offered to the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General Jolie was able and just remember Gerald Bates's

acknowledgement that he had an appreciate the depth of what that meant to her to do that and the impact that can have on very apologize for it. So, you know, it you could be the most resilient person in the world, it is a lot to assume. There have been, I've also heard

requests that that person be indigenous and you certainly saw the nomination of Secretary Hollad in the U.S. as really something that people on the side of, well, you know, indigenous people really, really celebrating. But the weight on her shoulder is measurable. You can see it in the op-ed that she published when we saw the the camera story broke. And she was brought to tears when we met her and talked about this.

This is something, I see that in my staff, Peter, the issues that they have to face every day going to work, the ones that are indigenous, is much greater and impacts them in much different ways that it would impact the person like me. So, you know, I'll tell you again, I don't know. I think one day perhaps that is, that is, that is, that is, if someone, if someone would do it and felt that they could make a difference, I think it would be very, be an active of healing. for the country, but the weight it was put on our shoulders of someone like that is immense. It's the same thing. I would, well, perhaps the same thing for a governor general. The post I occupy is one that that goes back to the 1750s.

It is pre-dains Canada. And to ask someone, indigenous to assume that. That would require a lot of work in that person would have to. I can't imagine what we go through their minds. But they can say yes. Things I see every day,

I wouldn't say that at the same time, I really, actually, it sounds weird. I really love my job, but I can really love my job, but it is difficult. And even before, once in a century pandemic, this isn't an easy ministry on a good day. So I can sort of mix views on it. It's a tough one because, you know,

you run the risk in a way of, I don't mean, you personally, I mean, just generally, talking about the weight on the on the shoulders of somebody. And being in that particular role, it makes it sound like, you know, it's kind of, it's almost patronizing in a way to say they couldn't handle that weight when others can. It's a tremendous responsibility and it would be a difficult position and there would be times of conflict on it. it just seems to me that there's a there's something missing there when we talk about how important this ministry has been and I am you know dating back to confederation and yet at no time is it

ever been I recognize that there was an opportunity in 2019 there was turned down or 2018 or whatever that was with Wilson Raebel but the fact is she didn't accept it and the fact is she She's not the only indigenous person whoever could have, you know, perhaps accepted that responsibility. But nevertheless, I appreciate your answer and the thoughtful way in which you gave it and on all the other issues as well that we've discussed.

I wish you luck. I think all Canadians wish you luck on this one. It's a tough one. And the heart is in the right place, I think, on all those who are, are watching the story unfold and all those who are obviously so directly related and involved and and dealing with it on a on a daily basis. So once again, I thank you very much.

Thanks, Peter. Appreciate it. Thanks, having a lot. That's the Indigenous Affairs Minister, Mark Miller. When we come back, Murray Sinclair. All right, part two of this special, bridge special. on the residential schools question and the developments that have occurred over the last couple of weeks and trying to map out what the road forward is.

Our next guest is Murray Sinclair. He really needs no introduction, former judge, former, you know, lawyer, senator, and of course he was the chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He's in his Manitoba home, and we've reached out to try and get his sense of where we are on all this. You know, I never like to give up titles, even though I know it's kind of an American thing where they

keep their titles forever. In Canada, we tend to drop them, but I think they're important. So I'm going to call you Senator Sinclair. I could call you any number of different things, but why don't we start with Senator on this one? You know, you set out a path for us

half a dozen years ago. when the commission reported and you know you can argue about how far along that path we actually are but where do you sense we are on the path forward? What do we still have to accomplish?

Well, you know, it's it's like when you look at the calls to action you can see that we set out in the first two dozen calls to action what we saw as immediate needs that had to be addressed before we could actually move into the bigger conversation about reconciliation. But that didn't stop us from having to look at developing the groundwork for those long-term needs,

such as a council for reconciliation and looking at a proclamation and reconciliation and looking at an investigation into the missing children and the unmarked burials. So all of those were in the latter part of the report, but the first 25 calls to action were really about addressing immediate needs like boiled water advisories, housing, health conditions, the mental

health of survivors and their families, child welfare, apprehension rates, incarceration rates. Because we said until those issues are identified and wrestle to the ground, it's hard to talk about the bigger question because the bigger questions

need to be able to have a clear playing field in order to really have a good conversation about them. It's like, you know, when people want to sit and talk to you about your future and everybody's saying, come on, you've got to fix that broken window where you've got to replace the light bulb, but you've got to go to the grocery store and get some food. So those things distract you from those big conversations. And what we said is that indigenous people need to be put into a place where they can have a sense of comfort that those things are taken care of

and then they'll have a conversation about those bigger questions. But in addition to that, you know, what we also pointed up was that there's a lot of a lot of healing that's related to that.

You know, mothers spend a lot of time talking at the TRC and subsequently talking to us about losing their children to the child welfare system. And so we need to understand. understand that those immediate needs need to be addressed, but far more importantly as well is that they will begin to put indigenous people into a position where they feel a sense of self-identity, self-respect, before you can get to a position of mutual respect. And that's what I've always said, is that it's hard to talk about developing a relationship with mutual respect until you have. a situation where you can respect yourself.

Let's assume that that groundwork gets done and that bigger issues are also tackled with. Tell me in your view, I mean, you heard me try this on the minister for his answer, but what does reconciliation look like? If we ever reach that day, what does it look like? But, you know, when people ask me that question, I would say, well, let's think of it in the context of something that you're quite familiar with. And that is, if you had a relationship that you know of in which there was a history of violence between two people, and then they decided that that was going to be addressed. And so a confrontation occurred with the perpetrator of that violence, say, a man and a wife.

the perpetrator was was caught in that violent situation and and so what would it take to get to the point where the two would be able to live in a mutually respectful relationship again well first of all the perpetrator would have to be accepting of the fact that he was violent would have to be aware of the consequences so it would have to be prepared to acknowledge that he was the wrongdoer in all of this there would have to be an apology and there would have to be an acceptance of responsibility to change behavior, but to do it in a meaningful way. And until those things are in place, moving

to a position of reconciliation is going to be very difficult because if the perpetrator merely says, oh, sorry, you caught me, I apologize, because he knows he has to apologize. And then he says, So let's get back together again. It doesn't happen that way.

It doesn't happen that way and it doesn't happen that quickly. And in the same way, the victim of that history also needs an opportunity to be able to move out of this relationship of victimization, this victimology issues that they've had to live with for so long when they were, in effect, virtually trained to blame themselves for the damage that this perpetrator was doing to them. Psychologists call that gaslighting in a single couple of relationship where the perpetrator, while he's beating the victim, will blame her for the fact that he's beating her. And she'll come to believe that if I just hadn't said that, if I just had cooked his meal,

right, if I just had come home when I said, I'd be home. If I would be here when I told him I'd be here, then he wouldn't be doing this to me. So it was my fault. So the victims learn to blame themselves as part of this history, and they have to learn to stop blaming themselves. And so that sense of self-blame, a sense of lack of worth also needs to be addressed as part of the reconciliation process.

So there's work on both sides that needs to be done here. And so until those things are properly addressed, you will never have that relationship with mutual respect. You can have it in a dress upstate so you can have it so that it looks like you're getting along. You can have it so that you look like your relationship is good, but it's not. Because underneath it, the perpetrator knows that when the opportunity comes, you'll be able to poke you in the shoulder and say get back in line and you will. And that happens today, incidentally, because I just remind people to look at the situation in British Columbia when those demonstrators were demonstrating against a construction of the line for a pipeline running over their territory.

Prime Minister said, this is a country in which we followed the rule of law. But what he doesn't know and what he didn't acknowledge and what he wasn't even aware, out is that Canada has refused to follow the rule of law, which is that indigenous people have rights over their territory, and we can't interfere with those rights until we get their consent, and they've never gotten their consent over those territories. So there's a lot of work today. Yeah. Can I just back you up a second?

Because I'm just wondering how comfortable you are using that analogy of the husband beating the wife. when we're talking about this issue. Is that the kind of analogy we should actually be comparing this to? Oh, yes. It's a typical victimization relationship that Canada has maintained for 150 years since Confederation. Since Sir John M. McDonald first started ignoring the treaties. When you look at the treaties of sales,

when you look at negotiations behind the treaties, you can see that assurances were given, promises were made, references were made to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 in which indigenous leaders were promised that the government would not interfere with their territories, would not interfere with their internal operations, and until the indigenous people were prepared to transfer their title to their lands to the crown,

then they would still be able to make, maintain their rates over those lands. So when you see that all of that occurred and then almost immediately, the government started to pass legislation in which they totally ignored all those obligations. Residential schools, for example, should never have been put in place because they were a breach of the treaty. In the treaties, there are promises but made by the government that they would build schools on the reserves to educate the children so that they would be able to get the same

kind of education that was being provided to the little white children, as a treaty said. And the government totally ignored that. They never built a civil under reserve for many, many, many years. Is the prime minister saying the right things in these, and the minister too? But in a general way, when the prime minister talks about this is Canada's responsibility to bear, I guess he's talking about all of us, but he's certainly talking about government, when he talks about, you know, telling the truth about these injustices and forever honoring the memory of those who were in those unmarked graves. Is he saying the right thing?

Is that what you want to hear the prime minister saying right now? Or do you want to hear him saying something else? Well, he's certainly utilizing the right words. But I don't think he quite understands what it is that he means. or should mean by those words. And that's part of the problem because when he says, for example, that the relationship with indigenous people is our most important relationship. He says that, but then the government continues to behave as it always has behaved.

So there's no change in behavior. And that's the problem is that the words are not accompanied by the required change in behavior. And so they're almost empty those words. They're almost meaningless because the words are good. The words sound nice. The words are the proper words to say, but the words mean nothing if there is not that change in behavior. Like I talked about with the domestic relationship, the perpetrator would say, I'm sorry I did that. I'll not do it again.

But if the perpetrator does not change his behavior, if he continues to poke, at his partner if he continues to push her. When she gets in the way, if he continues to talk about her to others in a demeaning way, without actually saying that to her, then that behavior is still going to maintain that perpetrator, victim relationship. And the government has done nothing to give up. its power and privilege over indigenous people since the time of the report. And by nothing, I'm even acknowledging the language legislation,

the amendment to the Citizenship Act, Oath Act on the other smaller legislative steps that they've taken, including the under bill. Those are important steps. but at the same time, it has not announced what its plan is to actually move to a position of reconciliation. What are they going to do to change their behavior? They have not once established a proper training program for all senior bureaucrats, for example, to train them on how to achieve reconciliation. I've only got a minute left, which doesn't seem fair, but that's what the clock's telling me.

There are Canadians who are trying to decide how to celebrate, if at all, Canada Day this year. What's your advice to them? Celebrated differently. This is not about celebration. This is about acknowledgement. This is about acknowledging Canada as a nation that has done wrong. among other things. And so acknowledge that.

I'm not one to suggest that there not be a Canada Day for Canadians to acknowledge the anniversary of the existence of this nation. But I am saying that whatever you call a celebration, make it for the right reason and acknowledge the full history of what this country is and has done. Justice. Senator, honorable. They all apply. And it's great.

We've known each other many years, and it's always a pleasure to talk to you, sir. And also, incidentally, before we leave, I want to thank you personally, because you were the first major interview that I did with the TRC at our national event in Winnipeg back in 2009 or 2010, whatever year that was. It was a long time ago. I remember that. I remember that well and and I remember how that journey started with much hope and and a degree of promise and we're still on

the journey and as you say there's a long way to go yet but thank you again thank you Justice Murray Sinclair Senator Murray Sinclair we'll be back in a moment that was an encore episode of our Bridge special broadcast

back in 2021 I hope you found an interesting, even though the stories have changed somewhat since that time. Mark Miller, Murray-Sinclair, our guests on that special encore edition. Today, once again, is the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. I hope you'll think about that. We'll be back again tomorrow with our Thursday, your turn program. Until then, I'm Peter Mansbridge. Take care.