The recent release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Final Report on Residential Schools has triggered renewed calls to consider changing the name of the Langevin Bridge and Langevin School here in Calgary.

Hector-Louis Langevin for whom the Bridge and public school are named after was one of the Fathers of Confederation who was a passionate defender of Quebec and French Canada’s interested in the negotiations that lead to the union of Britain’s North American colonies.

He was also Secretary of State and Superintendent of Indian Affairs in John A. MacDonald’s first Cabinet before he became Public Works Minister. He was responsible for “Indian Affairs” from 1967–1969 and it was during those years that he became one of the central architects of what Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin described as Canada’s attempt to commit cultural genocide.

Canada’s Residential Schools are a national shame. A “school” system which engaged in ongoing systemic abuses of Indigenous children, separated from their parents. 1 out of every 25 of the Indigenous children sent to the Residential Schools died in their custody.

As Canadians as a whole are coming to understand the full magnitude of the crime committed by our government and in our name, we now face the necessary task of confronting our history.

The decision to name the bridge after Langevin was controversial when it was made. He had already been forced out of politics once for his role in the Pacific Scandal, which had brought down MacDonald’s Government.

His return to politics had been less than stellar and the decision was largely made in the hopes that he would use his position a Minister of Public Works to help cover some of the maintenance costs of the bridge (this was for the first bridge). He did do so while he was Minister of Public Works but scandal would again force him from public office for the last time.

When the second bridge was built, the province (which was handling the construction, with some of the costs covered by the city) deferred the matter of the name to the city, which never bothered to reconsider the issue despite the encouragement of some prominent citizens.

Even in the context of the time, many felt that naming a bridge after a politician who was twice disgraced was inappropriate.