From the outset, this Commission has emphasized that reconciliation is not a one-time event; it is a multi-generational journey that involves all Canadians. The public apologies and compensation to residential school Survivors, their families, and their communities by Canada and the churches that ran the residential schools marked the beginning, not the end, of this journey. Survivors needed to hear government and church officials admit that the cultural, spiritual, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse that they suffered in the schools was wrong and should never have happened, but they needed more.
The children and grandchildren of Survivors needed to hear the truth about what happened to their parents and grandparents in the residential schools. At the Commission’s public events, many Survivors spoke in the presence of their children and grandchildren for the first time about the abuses they had suffered as children, and about the destructive ways of behaving they had learned at residential school. Many offered their own heartfelt apologies to their families for having been abusive or unable to parent, or simply to say, “I love you.”
Apologies are important to victims of violence and abuse. Apologies have the potential to restore human dignity and empower victims to decide whether they will accept an apology or forgive a perpetrator. Where there has been no apology, or one that victims believe tries to justify the behaviour of perpetrators and evade responsibility, reconciliation is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. The official apologies from Canada and the churches sent an important message to all Canadians that Aboriginal peoples had suffered grievous harms at the hands of the state and church institutions in the schools, and that, as the parties responsible for those harms, the state and the churches accepted their measure of responsibility. The apologies were a necessary first step in the process of reconciliation.
The history and destructive legacy of the residential schools is a sober reminder that taking action does not necessarily lead to positive results. Attempts to assimilate First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples into mainstream Canadian society were a dismal failure. Despite the devastating impacts of colonization, Indigenous peoples have always resisted (although in some places not always successfully) attacks on their cultures, languages, and ways of life.
If Canadians are to keep the promise of the apologies made on their behalf—the promise of “never again!”—then we must guard against simply replicating the assimilation policies of the past in new forms today. As Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Honorary Witness Wab Kinew writes, “The truth about reconciliation is this: It is not a second chance at assimilation. It should not be a kinder, gentler evangelism, free from the horrors of the residential school era. Rather, true reconciliation is a second chance at building a mutually respectful relationship.”1
The words of the apologies will ring hollow if Canada’s actions fail to produce social, cultural, political, and economic change that benefits Aboriginal peoples and all Canadians.
A just reconciliation requires more than simply talking about the need to heal the deep wounds of history. Words of apology alone are insufficient; concrete actions on both symbolic and material fronts are required. Reparations for historical injustices must include not only apology, financial redress, legal reform, and policy change but also the rewriting of national history and public commemoration.
In every region of the country, Survivors and others have sent a strong message, as received by this Commission: for reconciliation to thrive in the coming years, Canada must move from apology to action.
Official apologies can play a significant role in national reconciliation. Although victims may demand an apology, the state ultimately has the power to decide whether it will comply. Legal scholar Martha Minow points out that “official apologies can correct a public record, afford public acknowledgment of a violation, assign responsibility, and reassert the moral baseline to define violations of basic norms.”2
An official apology constitutes a public admission that acceptable societal norms and values have been violated and that, as a result, civic trust has been broken.3
Unlike a personal apology made by an individual to a specific individual or group of individuals that he or she has harmed directly, an official apology is made by a high-ranking government or institutional official with authority to speak on behalf of his or her constituents. Official apologies can help to change public attitudes about historical matters and verify the credibility of victims whose claims have been disbelieved.
A sincere apology should explain to the general public why a particular government policy or institutional action was wrong and demonstrate that the wrongdoer accepts responsibility for the individual and collective harms that resulted. This public accountability provides the necessary rationale and justification for making other forms of reparations to victims, such as financial compensation and commemoration.4 But official apologies are not just about the past: they also have implications for the future.5
In the final years of the twentieth century and into the new millennium, victims of violence and human rights violations throughout the world have sought truth and demanded justice from the state. This has given rise, particularly in Western countries, to what some have described as an “age of apology.”6
When a historical injustice involves Indigenous peoples, an official apology raises questions concerning its authenticity, purpose, and function because colonialism and oppression still define their relationship with the state. Governments in Australia, the United States, New Zealand, and Canada have all, at various times and for various reasons, issued apologies to Indigenous peoples as a way to deal with their unsavory colonial pasts. Indigenous studies scholar Jeff Corntassel and philosopher Cindy Holder argue that
decolonization and restitution are necessary elements of reconciliation because these are necessary to transform relations with indigenous communities in the way justice requires. Whether the mechanism attempting to address injustice to indigenous peoples and remedy wrongs is an apology or a truth and reconciliation commission, it must begin by acknowledging indigenous peoples’ inherent right to self-determination.7
Their observations aptly sum up the controversies and tensions surrounding Canada’s apology. The many references to the apology heard by this Commission showed that some saw it as an important step towards individual, community, and national healing, whereas others viewed it as nothing more than some well-crafted words designed to make the government look good. It is important to assess whether an apology is genuine because, as historian Michael Marrus points out, “even beautifully crafted apologies can fail.”8 A failed apology may make matters even worse than no apology at all; victims may feel that they have been revictimized.
Political scientist Matt James, drawing on the work of various scholars of political apologies, concludes that a genuine apology
(1) is recorded officially in writing;
(2) names the wrongs in question;
(3) accepts responsibility;
(5) promises nonrepetition;
(6) does not demand forgiveness;
(7) is not hypocritical or arbitrary; and
(8) undertakes—through measures of publicity, ceremony, and concrete reparation—both to engage morally those in whose name the apology is made and to assure the wronged group that the apology is sincere.9
Official apologies offered to Aboriginal peoples by the state and its institutions must not only meet the criteria of Western-based political and legal cultures but must be measured by Indigenous criteria as well. Indigenous peoples document their histories through oral-based tradition, including the official recording of apologies and restitution made in order to rectify harms. In doing so, they rely on their own culturally specific laws, ceremonies, and protocols.10
June 11, 2008, was an important day for the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and for the country as a whole. It has come to be known as the “Day of the Apology,” the day when Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and the leaders of all other federal political parties, formally apologized in the House of Commons for the harms caused by the residential school system. In their presentations to the TRC, many Survivors clearly recalled the day of the apology. They recalled where they were, who they were with, and most importantly, how they felt. Many spoke of the intense emotions they had when they heard the prime minister acknowledge that it had been wrong for the government to take them away from their families for the purpose of “killing the Indian” in them. They talked of the tears that fell when they heard the words “we are sorry.”
Survivors and their families needed to hear those words. They had lived with pain, fear, and anger for most of their lives, resulting from the abrupt separation from their families and their experiences at residential schools, and they wanted desperately to begin their healing. They needed validation of their sense that what had been done to them was wrong. They wanted to believe that things would begin to change—not the schools, which had long been closed, but the attitude and behaviours that lay behind the existence of the schools. They wanted to believe that the government that had so long controlled their lives and abused its relationship with them now ‘saw the light.’ They wanted to believe that the future for their children and their grandchildren would be different from their own experiences—that their lives would be better. The apology gave them cause to think that their patience and perseverance through the trauma and negativity of their experiences in and beyond the residential schools had been worth the struggle. It gave them hope.
At the TRC’s Saskatchewan National Event, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Shawn A-in-chut Atleo said,
I think as was heard here, what I’m so grateful for is that there’s a growing experience . . . about the work of reconciliation. . . . How do communities reconcile? Well, it begins with each and every one of us. How fortunate I am as a young man to have spent time with my late grandmother. I held her hand. She was eighty-seven years old, still here. During that apology, she said, “Grandson, they’re just starting to see us, they’re just beginning to see us.” That’s what she said. And she found that encouraging, because it’s the first step, actually seeing one another, having the silence broken and the stories starting to be told. . . . I think that’s where it begins, isn’t it? Between us as individuals sharing the stories from so many different perspectives so that we can understand.11
Survivors are more than just victims of violence. They are also holders of Treaty, constitutional, and human rights.12 They are women and men who have resilience, courage, and vision. Many have become Elders, community leaders, educators, lawyers, and political activists who are dedicated to revitalizing their cultures, languages, Treaties, laws, and governance systems. Through lived experience, they have gained deep insights into what victims of violence require to heal. Equally important, they have provided wise counsel to political leaders, legislators, policymakers, and all citizens about how to prevent such violence from happening again.
The Commission agrees with Anishinaabe scholar and activist Leanne Simpson, who has urged Canadians not to think about reconciliation in narrow terms or to view Survivors only as victims.
If reconciliation is focused only on residential schools rather than the broader set of relationships that generated policies, legislation, and practices aimed at assimilation and political genocide, then there is a risk that reconciliation will “level the playing field” in the eyes of Canadians. . . . I also worry that institutionalization of a narrowly defined “reconciliation” subjugates treaty and nation-based participation by locking our Elders—the ones that suffered the most directly at the hands of the residential school system—into a position of victimhood. Of course, they are anything but victims. They are our strongest visionaries and they inspire us to vision alternative futures.13
Speaking at the British Columbia National Event, Honorary Witness and former lieutenant-governor of British Columbia the Honourable Steven Point said,
We got here to this place, to this time, because Aboriginal Survivors brought this [litigation on residential schools] to the Supreme Court of Canada. The churches and the governments didn’t come one day and say, “Hey, you know, we did something wrong and we’re sorry. Can you forgive us?” Elders had to bring this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. It’s very like the situation we have with Aboriginal rights, where nation after nation continues to seek the recognition of their Aboriginal title to their own homelands.14
The Commission believes that Survivors, who took action to bring the history and legacy of the residential schools to light, who went to court to confront their abusers, and who ratified the Settlement Agreement, have made a significant contribution to reconciliation. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada was not established because of any widespread public outcry demanding justice for residential school Survivors.15 Neither did the Settlement Agreement, including the TRC, come about only because government and church defendants, faced with huge class-action lawsuits, decided it was preferable to litigation. Focusing only on the motivations of the defendants does not tell the whole story. It is important not to lose sight of the many ways that Aboriginal peoples have succeeded in pushing the boundaries of reconciliation in Canada.
From the early 1990s onward, Aboriginal people and their supporters had been calling for a public inquiry into the residential school system. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples made this same recommendation in 1996. A majority of Survivors ratified the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, partly because they were dissatisfied with the litigation process. Survivors wanted a public forum such as a truth and reconciliation commission so that Canada could hear their unvarnished truths about the residential schools. Survivors also wanted a formal apology from Canada that acknowledged the country’s wrongdoing.16 Due in large part to their efforts, the prime minister delivered an official apology to Survivors on behalf of Canada.
Although societal empathy for Aboriginal victims of abuse in residential schools is important, this sentiment alone will not prevent similar acts of violence from recurring in new institutional forms. There is a need for a clear and public recognition that Aboriginal peoples must be seen and treated as much more than just the beneficiaries of public goodwill. As holders of Treaty, constitutional, and human rights, they are entitled to justice and accountability from Canada to ensure that their rights are not violated.
In his initial report, tabled in August 2012, Pablo de Greiff, the first UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, points out that in countries where prosecuting individual perpetrators of criminal acts involving human rights violations has been difficult, other measures such as truth-seeking forums, reparations, and institutional reforms are especially critical. Such measures enable victims of state violence to develop some confidence in the legitimacy and credibility of the state’s justice system. But de Greiff cautions that implementing these measures alone does not guarantee that reconciliation will follow. Apologies, commemoration, public memorials, and educational reform are also required in order to transform social attitudes and foster long-term reconciliation.17
The Treaty, constitutional, and human rights violations that occurred in and around the residential school system confirm the dangers that exist for Aboriginal peoples when their right to self-determination is ignored or limited by the state, which purports to act ‘in their best interests.’ Historically, whenever Aboriginal peoples have been targeted as a specific group that is deemed by government to be in need of protective legislation and policies, the results have been culturally and ethnically destructive.
For Aboriginal peoples in Canada, the protection and exercise of their right to self-determination are the strongest antidote to further violation of their rights. In the coming years, governments must remain accountable for ensuring that Aboriginal peoples’ rights are protected and that government actions do in fact repair trust and foster reconciliation. Repairing trust begins with an apology, but it involves far more than that.
The report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples noted that for some time after settler contact, the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples had been one of mutual support, co-operation, and respect. Despite incidents of conflict, Aboriginal peoples’ acceptance of the arrival of Europeans, and their willingness to participate with the newcomers in their economic pursuits, to form alliances with them in their wars, and to enter into Treaties with them for a variety of purposes, showed a wish to coexist in a relationship of mutual trust and respect.18 This aspect of the relationship was confirmed on the non-Aboriginal side by evidence such as the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaty of Niagara of 1764, as discussed earlier.
The trust and respect initially established were ultimately betrayed. Since Confederation in 1867, the approach of successive Canadian federal governments to the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to provide education for Aboriginal peoples has been deeply flawed. Equally important, the consequences of this broken trust have serious implications well beyond residential schools. The trust relationship and Canada’s particular obligation to uphold the honour of the Crown with regard to Aboriginal peoples go to the very heart of the relationship itself.
As the original occupants for thousands of years of the lands and territories that became Canada, Aboriginal peoples have unique legal and constitutional rights. These rights arose from their initial occupation and ownership of the land, and were affirmed in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which also decreed that the Crown had a special duty to deal fairly with, and protect, Aboriginal peoples and their lands. Subsequently, the Dominion of Canada assumed this fiduciary obligation under Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which gave Parliament legislative authority over “Indians, and lands reserved for Indians.” Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 also recognized and affirmed existing Aboriginal and Treaty rights.
In several key decisions, Canadian courts have said that the federal government must always uphold the honour of the Crown in its dealings with Aboriginal peoples. In R. v. Sparrow (1990), the Supreme Court ruled that “the Government has the responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity with respect to aboriginal peoples. The relationship between the Government and aboriginals is trust-like, rather than adversarial . . . the honour of the Crown is at stake in dealings with aboriginal peoples.” In Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that “in all its dealings with Aboriginal peoples, from the assertion of sovereignty to the resolution of claims and the implementation of treaties, the Crown must act honourably,” and that “the honour of the Crown . . . is not a mere incantation, but rather a core precept that finds its application in concrete practices.” In other words, the honour of the Crown is not merely an abstract principle but one that must be applied with diligence.19
In Manitoba Métis Federation v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), the Métis Nation argued that when the Métis peoples negotiated an agreement with the federal government that would enable Manitoba to enter Confederation, “they trusted Canada to act in their best interests . . . [and] to treat them fairly.”20 The Supreme Court said that in 1870, the
broad purpose of S. 31 of the Manitoba Act was to reconcile the Métis community with the sovereignty of the Crown and to permit the creation of the province of Manitoba. This reconciliation was to be accomplished by a more concrete measure—the prompt and equitable transfer of the allotted public lands to the Métis children. (Para. 98)
Ruling in favour of the Manitoba Métis Nation, the court observed that its “submissions went beyond the argument that the honour of the Crown gave rise to a fiduciary duty, raising the broader issue of whether the government’s conduct generally comported with the honour of the Crown” (para. 87). The court found that although Section 31 promised that land grants to Métis people would be implemented “in the most effectual and equitable manner,” this did not happen. “Instead, the implementation was ineffectual and inequitable. This was not a matter of occasional negligence, but of repeated mistakes and inaction that persisted for more than a decade. A government sincerely intent on fulfilling the duty that its honour demanded could and should have done better” (para. 128).
For Treaty peoples or First Nations, the unilateral imposition of the Indian Act, including the residential school system, represents a fundamental breach of the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fiduciary duty to deal with them honourably in both principle and practice.
The Crown’s position as a fiduciary with regard to Aboriginal peoples is clearly a complicated and potentially conflicting area of legal obligation. As a fiduciary, the Crown, through the Government of Canada, has a legal obligation to act in the best interests of Aboriginal peoples. This is the same case for the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the United States, which is commonly referred to as a “Trustee.” As a trustee, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has a similar obligation to act in the best interests of Native Americans, and to ensure that other government departments do not act in a manner that contravenes tribal rights and interests or the government’s lawful obligations.
In the United States, the “Solicitor’s Opinions” issued from time to time by the Department of the Interior, which has authority over the Bureau of Indian Affairs, are used to give direction to government generally as well as to explain and justify government action. In Canada, it must be recognized that the federal Department of Justice has two important, and potentially conflicting, roles when it comes to Aboriginal peoples:
1. The Department of Justice Canada provides legal opinions to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) in order to guide the department in its policy development, legislative initiatives, and actions. Those opinions, and the actions based on them, invariably affect Aboriginal governments and the lives of Aboriginal people significantly. Often those opinions are about the scope and extent of Aboriginal and Treaty rights, and often they form the basis upon which federal Aboriginal policy is developed and enacted.
2. Justice Canada also acts as the legal advocate for the AANDC and the government in legal disputes between the government and Aboriginal people. In this capacity, it takes instruction from senior officials within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs when the department is implicated in legal actions concerning its responsibilities. It gives advice about the conduct of litigation, the legal position to be advanced, the implementation of legal strategy, and the decision about whether to appeal a particular court ruling.
The necessity both to uphold the honour of the Crown and to dispute a legal challenge to an official’s or department’s action or decision can sometimes give rise to conflicting legal obligations.
In the Commission’s view, these legal opinions should be available, as of right and upon request, to Aboriginal peoples, for whom the Crown is a fiduciary. Canadian governments and their law departments have a responsibility to discontinue acting as though they are in an adversarial relationship with Aboriginal peoples and to start acting as true fiduciaries. Canada’s Department of Justice must be more transparent and accountable to Aboriginal peoples; this requirement includes sharing its legal opinions on Aboriginal rights. As noted above, there is precedent for making this change. Not only has the US Office of the Solicitor made public its legal opinions on a range of issues affecting Native Americans, but these opinions are now also widely available online.21
51) We call upon the Government of Canada, as an obligation of its fiduciary responsibility, to develop a policy of transparency by publishing legal opinions it develops and upon which it acts or intends to act, in regard to the scope and extent of Aboriginal and Treaty rights.
One aspect of the Doctrine of Discovery that continues to assert itself to this day is the fact that court cases involving Aboriginal territorial claims have placed a heavy requisite standard on Aboriginal claimants to prove that they were in occupation of land at first contact and that the rights claimed over the territory have continued from then to the present. The Commission believes that there is good reason to question this requirement, particularly in view of the fact that much of the record upon which courts rely is documentary proof or oral testimony from acknowledged Elder experts. History shows that for many years after Confederation, Aboriginal claimants were precluded from accessing legal advice or the courts to assert their claims, and that many of their best Elder experts have passed on without having had an opportunity to record their evidence.
The Commission believes that it is manifestly unfair for Aboriginal claimants to be held to the onus of proof throughout legal proceedings. However, it is reasonable to require that an Aboriginal claimant establish occupation of specified territory at the requisite period of time. This could be at the time of contact or at the time of Crown assertion of sovereignty. It is our view that once occupation has been proven, the onus should shift to the other party to show that the claim no longer exists, either through extinguishment, surrender, or some other valid legal means.22 Therefore, we conclude that Aboriginal claims of title and rights should be accepted on assertion, with the burden of proof placed on those who object to such claims.
52) We call upon the Government of Canada, provincial and territorial governments, and the courts to adopt the following legal principles:
i. Aboriginal title claims are accepted once the Aboriginal claimant has established occupation over a particular territory at a particular point in time.
ii. Once Aboriginal title has been established, the burden of proving any limitation on any rights arising from the existence of that title shifts to the party asserting such a limitation.
The report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples emphasized that the restoration of civic trust is essential to reconciliation. It concluded that “the purpose of engaging in a transaction of acknowledgement and forgiveness is not to bind Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in a repeating drama of blame and guilt, but jointly to acknowledge the past so that both sides are freed to embrace a shared future with a measure of trust.” The report added that “the restoration of trust is essential to the great enterprise of forging peaceful relations.”23 The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada agrees with these findings.
For reconciliation to take root, Canada, as the party to the relationship that has breached this trust, has the primary obligation to do the work needed to regain the trust of Aboriginal peoples. It is our view that at the time of Confederation, and in subsequent Treaty negotiations, Aboriginal peoples placed a great deal of faith in the words of those speaking for the Crown, and therefore expected that the new relationship would be a positive one for both of them. This faith was betrayed, however, by the imposition of the Indian Act, the development of the residential school system, and a series of other repressive measures.
Survivors have indicated that despite the Settlement Agreement and Canada’s apology, trust has not yet been restored. Eugene Arcand of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Indian Residential Schools Survivor Committee said,
I was there at the apology. I thought I was on my way to reconciliation when I heard the prime minister’s words, in a way, when his voice trembled. . . . It would be remiss of me to the Survivors of Saskatchewan and Survivors across this country to not talk about what’s happened since the apology. It’s been difficult to talk on one side of my mouth about reconciliation and truth, and on the other side of my heart I have very intense feelings about the actions of the federal government, Prime Minister Harper who gave that apology, and the Ministry of Indian Affairs in the administration of this agreement and other acts of government that have been an assault on our people. . . .
[W]e as First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people, especially residential school Survivors, want to reconcile. We really, really want to. But it’s difficult when we see, and feel, and read what’s coming out of the House, provincially, federally, in regards to our well-being. First, with the cuts to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and other cuts that have happened in regards to education, in regards to our livelihood.24
In Winnipeg at the TRC Manitoba National Event, Survivor Allan Sutherland said, “I do teachings in schools. I ask the children when somebody gives you an apology, what are you looking for? They’ll tell me—sincerity, do they mean it? And of course, behaviour. They don’t repeat what they did, what they’re doing. I had high hopes with the apology in 2008. I have since been dismayed about how slow we are moving.”25 At the TRC Victoria Regional Event in British Columbia, Survivor Lisa Scott said, “the apology was nice. . . . I’m glad somebody apologized, but how is it going to be accepted if it’s just a statement and there is no action? . . . The apology is just an apology. . . . Now show us. Make amends.26
Speaking to the Commission in Batoche, Saskatchewan, intergenerational Survivor Ron McHugh said,
Reconciliation? I think there has to be a lot of integrity put behind that word. We’re often given lip-service by the government in a lot ways, and even . . . the national apology . . . was a token event. . . . Action—that’s what reconciliation means to me; it’s action. . . . Action by both parties . . . for us [Aboriginal peoples] to just put away [our] resentment and for the government to put away their devious, imperialistic mindset . . . [We need to] come together and find a really solid solution.27
A government apology sends a powerful symbolic message to citizens that the state’s actions were wrong.28 As important as Canada’s apology was, it did not simply mark a closure of the past. It also created an opening for Canadians to begin a national dialogue about restoring Aboriginal peoples to a just and rightful place within Canada. In their evaluation of where things stood in the years immediately following the apology, Aboriginal leaders identified a post-apology gap between the aspirational language of Canada’s apology and Aboriginal peoples’ continuing realities. Closing this gap is vital to reconciliation.
Speaking to the Senate on June 11, 2009, the first anniversary of Canada’s apology, Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine, who is also a Survivor, said,
In a post-apology era, the honour of the Crown must be a defining feature in the new relationship where legal obligations are vigilantly observed, where First Nations are diligently consulted and accommodated on all matters affecting our lives, and our right to free, prior and informed consent is respected. . . . Let it be clear that First Nations care deeply about our human rights—the human rights of the women in our communities, our children, our families and our communities.
The principles of reconciliation, such as mutual respect, coexistence, fairness, meaningful dialogue, and mutual recognition, are not empty words. These principles are about action; that is, they give shape and expression to the material, political and legal elements of reconciliation. It has been an eventful year in Canadian and global politics, society and the economy since last June. First Nations have been affected by the decisions of the Government of Canada during this time. . . . Given the level of poverty among First Nations, our economies and communities are at an alarmingly high risk of sinking further into the bleakness and despair of poverty. We, as a society, must not let this happen. . . .
If this partnership between all founding peoples of the federation is to be meaningful, mutual responsibility and accountability must also define the relationship. . . . Reconciliation then, implies a solemn duty to act, a responsibility to engage, and an obligation to fulfill the promises inherent in an advanced democratic and ethical citizenship. That is, the Government of Canada—in fact, all, all members of Parliament in both houses—has a responsibility . . . to bridge the past to a future in which the gap in the quality of life and well-being between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people vanishes, where First Nations poverty is eradicated, where our children have the same opportunities and life chances as other children, and the promises of our treaties are fulfilled.
Reconciliation must mean real change for all of our people in all the places we choose to live, change that addresses the wrongs in a way that brings all of us closer together. Human rights, hope, opportunity and human flourishing are not the privilege of one group or one segment of Canadian society; they belong to all of us. Achieving an apology is not an end point.29
National reconciliation involves respecting differences and finding common ground to build a better future together. Whether Survivors’ hopes on the day of Canada’s apology will ultimately be realized rests on our ability to find that common ground.
Therefore, we believe that all levels of government must make a new commitment to reconciliation and accountability. The federal government, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, and all Canadians will benefit from the establishment of an oversight body that will have a number of objectives, including assisting with discussions on reconciliation and making regular reports that evaluate progress on commitments to reconciliation. Progress on reconciliation at all levels of both government and civil society organizations needs vigilant attention and measurement to determine improvements. In terms of public education, it will be important to ensure that all Canadians have the educational resources and practical tools required to advance reconciliation.
53) We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation. The legislation would establish the council as an independent, national, oversight body with membership jointly appointed by the Government of Canada and national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members. Its mandate would include, but not be limited to, the following:
i. Monitor, evaluate, and report annually to Parliament and the people of Canada on the Government of Canada’s post-apology progress on reconciliation to ensure that government accountability for reconciling the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown is maintained in the coming years.
ii. Monitor, evaluate, and report to Parliament and the people of Canada on reconciliation progress across all levels and sectors of Canadian society, including the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action.
iii. Develop and implement a multi-year National Action Plan for Reconciliation, which includes research and policy development, public education programs, and resources.
iv. Promote public dialogue, public-private partnerships, and public initiatives for reconciliation.
54) We call upon the Government of Canada to provide multi-year funding for the National Council for Reconciliation to ensure that it has the financial, human, and technical resources required to conduct its work, including the endowment of a National Reconciliation Trust to advance the cause of reconciliation.
55) We call upon all levels of government to provide annual reports or any current data requested by the National Council for Reconciliation so that it can report on the progress towards reconciliation. The reports or data would include, but not be limited to:
i. The number of Aboriginal children—including Métis and Inuit children—in care compared with non-Aboriginal children, the reasons for apprehension, and the total spending on preventive and care services by child-welfare agencies.
ii. Comparative funding for the education of First Nations children on and off reserves.
iii. The educational and income attainments of Aboriginal peoples in Canada compared with non-Aboriginal people.
iv. Progress on closing the gaps between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities in a number of health indicators, such as infant mortality, maternal health, suicide, mental health, addictions, life expectancy, birth rates, infant and child health issues, chronic diseases, illness and injury incidence, and the availability of appropriate health services.
v. Progress on eliminating the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in youth custody over the next decade.
vi. Progress on reducing the rate of criminal victimization of Aboriginal people, including data related to homicide and family violence victimization and other crimes.
vii. Progress on reducing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the justice and correctional systems.
56) We call upon the prime minister of Canada to formally respond to the report of the National Council for Reconciliation by issuing an annual “State of Aboriginal Peoples” report, which would outline the government’s plans for advancing the cause of reconciliation.
These new frameworks and commitments will not succeed without more understanding and sensitivity among those who will administer them.
57) We call upon federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to provide education to public servants on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism.
There is an old and well-accepted adage that states, “It takes a village to raise a child.” The removal of Aboriginal children from their villages was seen as a necessary step in the achievement of assimilation. However, not only did the Government of Canada take the children from their homes and villages, but it also then proceeded to destroy the cultural and functional integrity of the villages from which the children came and to which they would return.
Christian teachings were a fundamental aspect of residential schools. Aboriginal children were taught to reject the spiritual ways of their parents and ancestors in favour of the religions that predominated among settler societies. As their traditional ways of worshipping the Creator were disparaged and rejected, so too were the children devalued. They were not respected as human beings who were loved by the Creator just as they were—as First Nations, Inuit, or Métis peoples. Rather, their Christian teachers saw them as inferior humans in need of being ‘raised up’ through Christianity, and therefore tried to mould them into models of Christianity according to the racist ideals that prevailed at the time. The impact of such treatment was amplified by federal laws and policies that banned traditional Indigenous spiritual practices in the children’s home communities for much of the residential school era.
Spiritual violence occurs when
• a person is not permitted to follow her or his preferred spiritual or religious tradition;
• a different spiritual or religious path or practice is forced on a person;
• a person’s spiritual or religious tradition, beliefs, or practices are demeaned or belittled; or
• a person is made to feel shame for practising his or her traditional or family beliefs.
There is plenty of evidence to support our conclusion that spiritual violence was common in residential schools.
The effects of this spiritual violence have been profound and did not end with the schools. At the Alberta National Event, Survivor Theodore (Ted) Fontaine could have spoken for many Survivors when he said, “I went through sexual abuse. I went through physical abuse, mental, spiritual. And I’ll tell you . . . the one thing that we suffered [from] the most is the mental and spiritual abuse that we carried for the rest of our lives.”30
At the Saskatchewan National Event, Survivor and Elder Noel Starblanket, National Chief of the National Indian Brotherhood (later the Assembly of First Nations), talked about the intergenerational spiritual impacts of the residential schools: “My great-grandfather . . . was the first one to be abused by these churches and by these governments, and they forced his children into an Indian residential school and this began that legacy. They called him a pagan, a heathen . . . and that was in the late 1800s. So I’ve been living with that in my family since then.”31
Across the country, Survivors described how school staff demonized, punished, and terrorized them into accepting Christian beliefs.
Geraldine Bob told us,
The first thing we did was pray . . . and we prayed again after breakfast . . . [We] went to school and we prayed before school; we had catechism. And before we went for lunch, we prayed again; after lunch we prayed again. After school, we went to more catechism lessons. And we prayed again before dinner, after dinner, and then in the evening. The reason I remember all that praying was because I didn’t accept or acknowledge their God or their religion . . . I didn’t want to partake of [communion, but] we were forced to, and physically beaten if we didn’t . . . It was a kind of spiritual brutality that I experienced there.32
Survivor and former premier of the Northwest Territories Stephen Kakfwi said,
The nun used to say, “You know, Steve, you don’t listen. You’re just like a devil.” And I often wondered about it. You know, you go through depression and all these things, and you think, maybe she was right, you know, maybe as a nine year old, maybe I was a devil. Why else would I be punished by a nun? Why would she hit me? Why would she beat me? I must be so bad that God’s people would do that [to me].33
Robert Keesick said,
After arriving at the residential school, two nuns met me. I wasn’t welcomed. One said, . . . “Do you know your parents?” I said, “I know my mom.” She asked again, “Do you know your dad?” [I said,] “Not really.” She said, “So you are a bastard. We don’t accept the devil’s work in this school.” . . . From then on, it was pure hell. I was called bastard, savage, devil. I was not allowed to play with the other kids.34
Elaine Durocher said,
We were always praying. We were always on our knees. We were told we were little stupid savages and that they had to educate us. And because we were Métis kids, we should know more than the Indian kids because we have white blood in us. So because we were so stupid, they were going to beat us, beat it into us. We were always praying because we were devilish children. Because we were born Métis, we were stupid, they had to teach us.35
Not only was spiritual violence practised in the schools and imposed by the teachers, but the children themselves also learned and accepted such violence as part of their lives, and perpetuated its practice once they returned to their communities and became parents and adults. Intergenerational Survivor Ava Bear told us that her grandfather and father had both attended residential school.
My dad couldn’t get over being in residence [residential school], and he used to call our own people dirty heathens because that’s what he had been taught at school . . . My dad never believed in anything cultural. We never ever had wild meat. We never spoke our language. And when the powwow first came to our community, me and my sister both got involved on the Powwow Committee, and then one day my mother said, “Dad said you girls aren’t supposed to be involved with the Powwow Committee because it’s too pagan.” So I quit, but my sister’s still involved. So we lost our culture. We lost our language.36
Survivor Iris Nicholas explained that, as adults, she and other Survivors still carried a deep fear of the church that had been instilled in them as children.
At the residential school we were told we were pagans, and would grow up to be good-for-nothing Indians. Did they realize the impact their words had on us? It didn’t help the children, knowing that we were going to hell if we didn’t do what the nuns demanded. This fear is still inside of me. I’m sure that other Survivors still feel the fear, especially now that we are revealing the true nature of the government and the Catholic church [which were] using force and fear as a tactic to control innocent Indian children.37
That Christians in Canada, in the name of their religion, inflicted serious harms on Aboriginal children, their families, and their communities was in fundamental contradiction to what they purported their core beliefs to be. For the churches to avoid repeating their failures of the past, understanding how and why they perverted Christian doctrine to justify their actions is critical knowledge to be gained from the residential school experience.
Survivors, who for so many years were not believed by church officials when they revealed the abuses they had suffered in the schools, needed to hear the churches tell the truth. They needed to see that the churches now held themselves accountable both in words and by their actions. Between 1986 and 1998, all four Settlement Agreement churches offered apologies or statements of regret, in one form or another, for their attempts to destroy Indigenous cultures, languages, spirituality, and ways of life, and, more specifically, for their involvement in residential schools.
The United, Anglican, and Presbyterian Churches followed similar pathways: individuals or committees at the national level of each church became aware that there might be a need to apologize, a decision-making process was established at the highest levels of the church, and the apology was subsequently issued through the moderator or primate, who spoke for the whole church.
Unlike the three Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic Church in Canada does not have a single spokesperson with authority to represent all of its many dioceses and distinct religious orders. The issuing of apologies or statements of regret was left up to each of them individually. The result has been a patchwork of apologies or statements of regret that few Survivors or church members may even know exist.
Roman Catholics in Canada and across the globe look to the Pope as their spiritual and moral leader. Therefore, it has been disappointing to Survivors and others that the Pope has not yet made a clear and emphatic public apology in Canada for the abuses perpetrated in Catholic-run residential schools throughout the country.
On April 29, 2009, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Phil Fontaine, four other Aboriginal leaders, and five leaders from the Roman Catholic community in Canada travelled to Rome for a private audience with Pope Benedict XVI. No recording of the private meeting was permitted, but the Vatican issued a communiqué describing what the Pope had said.
Given the sufferings that some indigenous children experienced in the Canadian Residential School system, the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity. His Holiness emphasized that acts of abuse cannot be tolerated in society. He prayed that all those affected would experience healing, and he encouraged First Nations people to continue to move forward with renewed hope.38
The media reported that National Chief Fontaine and other Aboriginal leaders who had met with the Pope said that the statement was significant for all Survivors. Fontaine told CBC News that although it was not an official apology, he hoped that the Pope’s statement of regret would bring closure to the issue for residential school Survivors. “The fact that the word ‘apology’ was not used does not diminish this moment in any way,” he said. “This experience gives me great comfort.”39
The Pope’s statement of regret was significant to those who were present, and was reported widely in the media, but it is unclear what, if any, impact it had on Survivors, their families, and their communities, who were not able to hear the Pope’s words themselves. Many Survivors raised the lack of a clear Catholic apology from the Vatican as evidence that the Catholic Church still has not come to terms with its own wrongdoing in residential schools, and has permitted many Catholic nuns and priests to maintain that the allegations against their colleagues are false. A statement of regret that children were harmed in the schools is a far cry from a full and proper apology that takes responsibility for the harms that occurred.
The Commission notes that in 2010 Pope Benedict XVI responded to the issue of the abuse of children in Ireland differently and more clearly when he issued a pastoral letter, a public statement that was distributed through the churches to all Catholics in Ireland. He acknowledged that the church had failed to address the issue of child abuse in Catholic institutions.
Only by examining carefully the many elements that gave rise to the present crisis can a clear-sighted diagnosis of its causes be undertaken and effective remedies be found. Certainly, among the contributing factors we can include: inadequate procedures for determining the suitability of candidates for the priesthood and the religious life; insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation in seminaries and novitiates; a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures; and a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties and to safeguard the dignity of every person. Urgent action is required to address these factors, which have had such tragic consequences in the lives of victims and their families.40
He directly addressed those who were abused as children by church clergy.
You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated. Many of you found that, when you were courageous enough to speak of what happened to you, no one would listen. Those of you who were abused in residential institutions must have felt that there was no escape from your sufferings. It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel. At the same time, I ask you not to lose hope. . . . Speaking to you as a pastor concerned for the good of all God’s children, I humbly ask you to consider what I have said . . . [and that] you will be able to find reconciliation, deep inner healing and peace.41
In Canada, for more than a century, thousands of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children were subjected to spiritual, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse in Catholic-run residential schools. Other than a small private audience with Pope Benedict XVI in 2009, the Vatican has remained silent on the Roman Catholic Church’s involvement in the Canadian residential school system. During the Commission’s hearings, many Survivors told us that they knew that the Pope had apologized to Survivors of Catholic-run schools in Ireland. They wondered why no similar apology had been extended to them. They said, “I did not hear the Pope say to me, ‘I am sorry.’ Those words are very important to me . . . but he didn’t say that to the First Nations people.”42
58) We call upon the Pope to issue an apology to Survivors, their families, and communities for the Roman Catholic Church’s role in the spiritual, cultural, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children in Catholic-run residential schools. We call for that apology to be similar to the 2010 apology issued to Irish victims of abuse and to occur within one year of the issuing of this final report and to be delivered by the Pope in Canada.
Survivors made many statements to the Commission about Canada’s apology, but the same cannot be said of their response to church apologies. It is striking that although Survivors told us a great deal about how churches have affected their lives, and about how, as adults, they may or may not practise Christianity, they seldom mentioned the churches’ apologies or healing and reconciliation activities. This was the case even though they heard church representatives offer apologies at the TRC’s National Events. Their engagement with the churches was often more informal and personal. Survivors who visited the churches’ archival displays in the TRC’s Learning Places picked up copies of the apologies and talked directly with church representatives. They also had conversations with church representatives in the Churches Listening Areas and in public Sharing Circles.43
When the late Alvin Dixon, chair of the United Church of Canada’s Indian Residential School Survivors Committee, spoke to the Commission at the Northern National Event in Inuvik in 2011, he expressed what many other Survivors may have thought about all of the churches’ apologies.
The apologies don’t come readily. They don’t come easily. And when we heard the apology in 1986, those of us First Nations members of the United Church didn’t accept the apology, but we agreed to receive it and watch, and wait, and work with the United Church to put some flesh, to put some substance, to that apology. And we all believed that apologies should be words of action, words of sincerity that should mean something. . . . Our task is to make sure that the United Church lives up to that apology in meaningful ways. . . .
You know, our work is just beginning and we’re going to hold the church’s feet to the fire, other churches, and Canada to make sure that this whole exercise of healing goes on for as long as it takes for us to recover from the impacts of our experiences in those residential schools.
The other issue that comes up that we are addressing is having our Native spiritual practice condemned initially not just by the United Church but all churches . . . [W]ell, we now have our church supporting Native spiritual gatherings, and we’re going to host a national Native spiritual gathering in Prince Rupert this summer. . . . So we are very much holding the church’s feet to the fire and making sure that there are real commitments to putting life to the apologies.44
What Alvin Dixon told us is consistent with what the Commission heard from Survivors about Canada’s apology. Official apologies made on behalf of institutions or governments may be graciously received but are also understandably viewed with some skepticism. When trust has been so badly broken, it can be restored only over time as Survivors observe how the churches interact with them in daily life. He explained, in practical terms, how Survivors would continue to hold the churches accountable. Apologies mark only a beginning point on pathways of reconciliation; the proof of their authenticity lies in putting words into action. He emphasized how important it was to Survivors not only that the churches admit that condemning Indigenous spirituality was wrong but also that they go one step further and actively support traditional spiritual gatherings. This action, however, calls for ongoing commitment to educating church congregations into the future about the need for such action.
59) We call upon church parties to the Settlement Agreement to develop ongoing education strategies to ensure that their respective congregations learn about their church’s role in colonization, the history and legacy of residential schools, and why apologies to former residential school students, their families, and communities were necessary.
Many Survivors told the Commission that reconnecting with traditional Indigenous spiritual teachings and practices has been essential to their healing, with some going so far as to say, “It saved my life.” One Survivor said, “The Sun Dances and all the other teachings, the healing lodges, sweat lodges . . . I know that’s what helped me keep my sanity; to keep me from breaking down and being a total basket case. That’s what has helped me—the teachings of our Aboriginal culture and language.”45
Losing the connections to their languages and cultures in the residential schools had devastating impacts on Survivors, their families, and their communities. Land, language, culture, and identity are inseparable from spirituality; all are necessary elements of a whole way of being, of living on the land as Indigenous peoples. As Survivor and Anishinaabe Elder Fred Kelly has explained,
To take the territorial lands away from a people whose very spirit is so intrinsically connected to Mother Earth was to actually dispossess them of their very soul and being; it was to destroy whole Indigenous nations. Weakened by disease and separated from their traditional foods and medicines, First Nations peoples had no defence against further government encroachments on their lives. Yet they continued to abide by the terms of the treaties trusting in the honour of the Crown to no avail. They were mortally wounded in mind, body, heart, and spirit [and] that turned them into the walking dead. Recovery would take time, and fortunately they took their sacred traditions underground to be practiced in secret until the day of revival that would surely come. . . . I am happy that my ancestors saw fit to bring their sacred beliefs underground when they were banned and persecuted. Because of them and the Creator, my people are alive and in them I have found my answers.46
Jennie Blackbird, who attended the Mohawk Institute in Brantford, Ontario, explained it this way:
Our Elders taught us that language is the soul of the nation, and the sound of our language is its cement. Anishinaabemowin gives [us] the ability to see into our future. . . . Anishinaabemowin gives us the ability to listen . . . to what is going on around us and the ability to listen to what is happening inside of us. Through seeing and listening, we can harvest what we need to sustain ourselves, and to secure the properties that will heal us. Ever since I can remember as a child speaking my language, it helped me to restore my inner harmony by maintaining my mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being.47
Spiritual fear, confusion, and conflict are the direct consequences of the violence with which traditional beliefs were stripped away from Indigenous peoples. This turmoil gives particular urgency to understanding the role of Canada’s churches in effecting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. A number of Survivors spoke to us about the many contradictions they now see between their adult knowledge of Christian ethics and biblical teachings and how they were treated in the schools. These contradictions indicate the spiritual fear and confusion that so many Survivors have experienced.
Children who returned home from the residential schools were unable to relate to families who still spoke their traditional languages and practised traditional spirituality. Survivors who wanted to learn the spiritual teachings of their ancestors were criticized and sometimes ostracized by their own family members who were Christian, and by the church. Survivors and their relatives reported that these tensions led to family breakdown—such is the depth of this spiritual conflict.
Survivor Martina Fisher said that as an adult, she had approached Indigenous spiritual practices with trepidation. She was afraid that the church and her family would disapprove of what she was doing.
When I went to my first sweat lodge, I was just shaking. I was so scared. And [my youngest sister] asked me . . . why I was afraid. And I said, “Well, I’ll hurt the church and I’ll hurt Mom and Dad.” And she said, “No. You’ll be okay.” . . . And here I was already in my thirties, and I was still afraid. And then I went into the sweat lodge with her. And I’m so happy I went in . . . ’cause when it was done . . . it was like everything was lifted. I felt so much lighter, and I felt like I found my home . . . I tried to continue to go to church but once they knew that I was going to the Sun Dance, that I was going to the sweat lodge . . . I was being told here in my own community . . . that I was evil. . . . When we had our sweat lodge . . . and then somebody died, they blamed us. They thought that we were bringing evil into the community. That’s how Christianized our little community is. It’s hard for them to accept who they are. I keep telling them, “You have to be proud of who you are. You’re Anishinaabe. You can’t be somebody else.”48
The cumulative impact of the residential schools was to deny First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples their spiritual birthright and heritage. In our view, supporting the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination in spiritual matters must be a high priority in the reconciliation process if it is to be undertaken in a manner consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous peoples, who were denied the right to practise and teach their own spiritual and religious beliefs and traditions, must now be able to do so freely and on their own terms.49 For many, this is not easily achieved.
Many Survivors and their families continue to live in spiritual fear of their own traditions. Such fear is a direct result of the religious beliefs imposed on them by those who ran the residential schools. This long-internalized fear has spanned several generations and is difficult to shed. It is exacerbated by the fact that Christian doctrine today still fails to accord full and proper respect to Indigenous spiritual belief systems.
If it were the Survivors alone who faced this dilemma, one could argue that they should be able to resolve this for themselves in whatever way they can, including with the assistance of trusted church allies. However, the dilemma of spiritual conflict is more than a personal one to Survivors. It is one that extends to their children and grandchildren, who, in these modern times, realize that there is much more to their personal histories than what they have inherited from the residential schools and Canadian society. They realize that each Indigenous nation also has its own history and that such histories are part of who they are. Young First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people today are searching for their identities, which include their own languages and cultures.
Aboriginal parents want their children raised in a community environment that provides all of this. However, there is often conflict within communities when those who have been influenced by the doctrines of the churches feel that to teach Indigenous cultural beliefs to their children is to propagate evil. There are those who continue to actively speak out against Indigenous spiritual beliefs and to block or prohibit their practice.50
To have a right that you are afraid to exercise is to have no right at all. The Declaration asserts that governments (and other parties) now have an obligation to assist Indigenous communities to restore their own spiritual belief systems and faith practices, where these have been damaged or subjected to spiritual violence through past laws, policies, and practices. No one should be told who is, or how to worship, their Creator. This is an individual choice, and for Indigenous peoples it is also a collective right. However, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people need to be assured that they do indeed have the freedom to choose and that their choice will be respected.
All religious denominations in Canada must respect this right, but the United, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Catholic Churches, as parties to the Settlement Agreement, bear a particular responsibility to formally recognize Indigenous spirituality as a valid form of worship that is equal to their own. It cannot be left up to individuals in the churches to speak out when such freedom to worship is denied. Rather, the churches, as religious institutions, must affirm Indigenous spirituality in its own right. Without such formal recognition, a full and robust reconciliation will be impossible. Healing and reconciliation have a spiritual dimension that must continue to be addressed by the churches in partnership with Indigenous spiritual leaders, Survivors, their families, and their communities.
Many Indigenous people who no longer subscribe to Christian teachings have found the reclaiming of their Indigenous spirituality important to their healing and sense of identity. Some have no desire to integrate Indigenous spirituality into Christian religious institutions. Rather, they believe that Indigenous spirituality and Western religion should coexist on separate but parallel paths.
Elder Jim Dumont told the Commission about the importance of non-interference and mutual respect.
[The] abuse and the damage that has been done in residential schools, one of the primary sources of that is the church. And the church has to take ownership for that. But what bothers me about it is that the church continues to have a hold on our people. . . . Just get out of the way for awhile so that we can do what we need to do because as long as you are standing there thinking that you are supporting us, you are actually preventing us from getting to our own truth about this and our own healing about this, but I think the other thing that’s being avoided by the church is their need to reconcile with the Spirit. . . . I think that the church has to reconcile with the Creator. . . . I’m not a Christian but I have a high regard for this Spirit . . . who is called Jesus. . . . What I think is that when the church can reconcile with their God and their Saviour for what they have done, then maybe we can talk to them about reconciling amongst ourselves.51
In contrast, Aboriginal Christians who also practise Indigenous spirituality seek Indigenous and Christian spiritual and religious coexistence within the churches themselves. United Church reverend Alf Dumont, the first speaker of the All Native Circle Conference, said,
Respect is one of the greatest teachings that come from the original people of this land. Our ancestors followed that teaching when they met with their Christian brothers and sisters so many years ago. They saw a truth and a sacredness they could not deny in Christian teachings. Many were willing to embrace these teachings and leave their traditional teachings. Some were willing to embrace the teachings but still wanted to hold to their own. Some did not leave their own traditions, and when persecuted, went into hiding either deep in the mountains or deep inside themselves. Many were suspicious of the way the [Christian] teachings were presented and how they were lived. They were suspicious of the fact that they were asked to deny their own sacred teachings and ways and adopt only the new teachings they were given. Why could they not take what they needed from these new understandings and still live from their own? That was the understanding and teaching of holding respect for others’ beliefs. It was the way of the first people.52
Presbyterian reverend Margaret Mullin (Thundering Eagle Woman) put it this way:
Can the Rev. Margaret Mullin/Thundering Eagle [W]oman from the Bear Clan be a strong Anishinaabe woman and a Christian simultaneously? Yes I can, because I do not have my feet in two different worlds, two different religions, or two different understandings of God. The two halves of me are one in the same Spirit. I can learn from my grandparents, European and Indigenous Canadian, who have all walked on the same path ahead of me. I can learn from Jesus and I can learn from my Elders.53
Each of the Settlement Agreement churches has wrestled with the theological challenges and necessary institutional reforms that arise with regard to Indigenous spiritual beliefs and practices. At the same time, Aboriginal church members have taken a leadership role in advocating for Indigenous perspectives and ensuring that they are fully represented in the institutional structures, programs, and services of their respective churches.
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in 2013 endorsed a report on the development of a theological framework for Aboriginal spirituality within the church. The report noted “the need for Aboriginal Christians to be true to both their Indigenous identity and to their [Christian] faith,” and concluded, among other things, that “this conversation has the potential not simply to help us address our relationship as Presbyterians with Aboriginal people; it has the potential to contribute to the renewal of our church.”54
The Anglican Church has developed a vision for a self-governing Indigenous church to coexist within the broader institutional structure of the church. In 2001, a strategic plan called “A New Agape” was formally adopted by the church’s General Synod meeting. The plan set out the church’s vision for a
new relationship . . . based on a partnership which focuses on the cultural, spiritual, social and economic independence of Indigenous communities. To give expression to this new relationship the Anglican Church of Canada will work primarily with . . . Indigenous peoples for a truly Anglican Indigenous Church in Canada. It is an important step in the overall quest for self-governance.55
In 2007, the church appointed the Reverend Mark MacDonald as its first Indigenous National Bishop.
The United Church has likewise examined its theological foundations. In a 2007 report, “Living Faithfully in the Midst of Empire: Report to the 39th General Council 2006,” the United Church responded to an earlier call from the World Council of Churches “to reflect on the question of power and empire from a biblical and theological perspective and take a firm faith stance against hegemonic powers because all power is accountable to God.”56 The report recommended that further work be done, and a follow-up report, “Reviewing Partnership in the Context of Empire,” was issued in 2009. The report’s theological reflection noted,
Our development of the partnership model was an attempt to move beyond the paternalism and colonialism of 19th century missions. The current work to develop right relations with Aboriginal peoples is an attempt to move beyond a history of colonization and racism. This ongoing struggle to move beyond empire involves the recognition that our theology and biblical interpretation have often supported sexism, racism, colonialism, and the exploitation of creation. . . . Theologies of empire have understood God and men as separate from and superior to women, Indigenous peoples, and nature.57
In 2012, the Executive of the General Council reported on the follow-up to the 2006 and 2009 reports on how to re-envision the church’s theological purpose and restructure its institutions by shifting from a theology of empire to a theology of partnership.58
The Commission asked all the Settlement Agreement churches to tell us their views on Indigenous spirituality and what steps were being taken within their respective institutions to respect Indigenous spiritual practices. In 2015, two of the Settlement Agreement churches responded to this call.
On January 29, 2015, the Presbyterian Church in Canada issued a “Statement on Aboriginal Spiritual Practices.” Among other things, the church said,
As part of the Churches’ commitment to a journey of truth and reconciliation, the Presbyterian Church in Canada has learned that many facets of Aboriginal traditional spiritualities bring life and oneness with creation. Accepting this has sometimes been a challenge for the Presbyterian Church in Canada. We are now aware that there is a wide variety of Aboriginal spiritual practices and we acknowledge that it is for our church to continue in humility to learn the deep significance of these practices and to respect them and the Aboriginal elders who are the keepers of their traditional sacred truths. . . .
We acknowledge and respect both Aboriginal members of the Presbyterian Church in Canada who wish to bring traditional practices into their congregations and those Aboriginal members who are not comfortable or willing to do so. The church must be a community where all are valued and respected. It is not for the Presbyterian Church in Canada to validate or invalidate Aboriginal spiritualities and practices. Our church, however, is deeply respectful of these traditions.59
On February 18, 2015, the United Church of Canada issued a statement, “Affirming Other Spiritual Paths.” The document sets out various statements and apologies made by the church with regard to Indigenous spirituality, including an expression of reconciliation at the TRC’s Alberta National Event on March 27, 2014. Among other things, the church said,
In humility, the Church acknowledges its complicity in the degradation of Aboriginal wisdom and spirituality, and offers the following statements from its recent history. In doing so, the Church recognizes with pain that this is a complex and sensitive issue for some within Aboriginal communities of faith, who as a result of our Christianizing work, and the legacy of colonialism, are on a journey to restore harmony and spiritual balance. . . .
We have learned that ‘good intentions’ are never enough, especially when wrapped in the misguided zeal of cultural and spiritual superiority. Thus, we have learned that we were wrong to reject, discredit, and yes, even outlaw traditional indigenous spiritual practice and ceremony; in amazing circles of grace, as we have begun to listen to the wisdom of the elders, we have found our own faith enriched and deepened. And we are grateful. We know we have a long journey ahead of us. We are committed to make that journey in humility and partnership, engaging in the healing work of making “whole” our own spirituality, and acknowledging that holding both your spirituality and ours is possible through listening and learning with open hearts.60
Unlike the Protestant churches, in which theological reflection and institutional reform have been undertaken at the national level, the Roman Catholic Church in Canada’s approach to Indigenous spirituality has emphasized decision making at the local diocesan level. However, in a submission to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1993, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed its views on Indigenous spirituality.
The Native spiritual voice is now finding greater resonance in the broader Christian and social worlds. Native Christianity today is marked by the development of a theology that comes from Native prayer, culture, and experience. . . . As bishops, we have encouraged Native Catholic leaders to take increasing responsibility for the faith life of their communities. . . .
We also recognize that for some Native Peoples, Christianity and Native spirituality are mutually exclusive. We are committed to responding to this belief in a spirit of dialogue and respect, and to encouraging Native Peoples to join in conversation between Christianity and Native spirituality. . . . We will continue to explore the possibility of establishing channels of communication between our own spiritual heritage and Aboriginal spiritualities.61
In terms of institutional reform, the Canadian Catholic Aboriginal Council, established in 1998, advises the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on issues regarding Aboriginal peoples within the Catholic Church. The council’s mandate is to study and analyze “issues related to Catholic Aboriginal spirituality and education,” encourage “Aboriginal leadership in the Christian community,” support and promote “reconciliation in the context of the Catholic reality,” and serve “as an important link between Aboriginal Catholics and non-Aboriginal Catholics.”62
The Commission notes that all the Settlement Agreement churches have recognized the need to provide Aboriginal church members with theological education and training for leadership positions within the churches and for work in Aboriginal ministry programs. Beginning in 2007, the Churches’ Council on Theological Education in Canada held a series of conferences that sought to encourage and deepen the exploration of questions with respect to Indigenous and Christian beliefs and the incorporation of Indigenous cultural and spiritual practices into Christian practices. Through these events, the council also sought to challenge post-secondary institutions to consider how best to prepare theological students for ministry in Canada, in consideration not only of Indigenous people, their culture, and their spirituality but also of the need for churches to engage in healing and reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples.
The Toronto School of Theology made a public commitment to giving the same academic respect to Indigenous knowledge, including traditional Indigenous spiritual teachings, as is given to “traditions of Greek philosophy and modern science.”63 This pledge was made at the Meeting Place, an event co-sponsored by Council Fire Native Cultural Centre and the Toronto Conference of the United Church of Canada in June 2012.
Yet more remains to be done in education and training with regard to reconciling Indigenous spirituality and Christianity in ways that support Indigenous self-determination. Writing in 2009, the former Archdeacon for the Anglican Church and founding member of the Indian Ecumenical Conference, the Reverend John A. (Ian) MacKenzie, said,
Most urgently, churches need to consider opening a serious dialogue with Aboriginal theologians, doctors, and healers who represent . . . the North American intellectual tradition. . . . [Aboriginal peoples] call for recognition of the truth of past injustices and respect for their civilizations. Most of all, this is a call for respect for their traditional religious thoughts and practices. The only legitimate North American intellectual tradition comes from the diverse tribal societies in our midst! . . .
Sustainable reconciliation will only take place when every Canadian seminary includes a course on Aboriginal religious traditions; when every congregation . . . reflect[s] on North American intellectual tradition by initiating and inviting Aboriginal religious leaders to lead such discussions . . . when Aboriginal peoples achieve real self-government within their churches; and when Christian theology not only respects Aboriginal thought, but learns from it.64
60) We call upon leaders of the church parties to the Settlement Agreement and all other faiths, in collaboration with Indigenous spiritual leaders, Survivors, schools of theology, seminaries, and other religious training centres, to develop and teach curriculum for all student clergy, and all clergy and staff who work in Aboriginal communities, on the need to respect Indigenous spirituality in its own right, the history and legacy of residential schools and the roles of the church parties in that system, the history and legacy of religious conflict in Aboriginal families and communities, and the responsibility that churches have to mitigate such conflicts and prevent spiritual violence.
Beginning in the 1990s, the four Settlement Agreement churches began allocating specific funds for community-based healing and reconciliation projects. This work continued under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Each of the defendant churches agreed to provide and manage funds specifically dedicated to healing and reconciliation. All the churches established committees, including Aboriginal representatives, to review and approve projects. Those listed below are representative of hundreds of projects across the country. In broad terms, the reconciliation projects funded by the Settlement Agreement churches have had three primary purposes:
1. Healing. The Toronto Urban Native Ministry, funded by Anglican, United, and Roman Catholic churches, “reaches out to Aboriginal people on the street, in hospitals, in jails, shelters and hostels.”65 The ministry works with all Aboriginal people who are socially marginalized and impoverished, including Survivors and intergenerational family members who have been impacted by residential schools. Anamiewigumming Kenora Fellowship Centre, with funds from the Presbyterian Church in Canada, developed “A Step Up . . . Tools for the Soul,” in partnership with local Aboriginal organizations. Under the program, a series of ten teaching events led by Aboriginal Elders, teachers, and professionals were held to support Survivors and family members on their healing journey, featuring education about culture and tradition, with the goal of fostering reconciliation.66
2. Language and culture revitalization. The Language Immersion Canoe Course in Tofino, British Columbia, funded by the United Church, focused on reconnecting Aboriginal youth to their homelands and cultures. For one month, young Aboriginal people from Vancouver Island, including the community of Ahousaht, where the United Church operated a school, were taken to a remote and ancient Hesquiaht village site to learn the Hesquiah language through the art of canoe making.67
The Four Season Cultural Camps of the Serpent River First Nation in Ontario, funded by the Anglican Church, used traditional practices of harvesting, food storage, storytelling, and related ceremonies to promote language and culture.68 The Anglicans also supported a wilderness retreat for young people at the Nibinamik First Nation at Summer Beaver, Ontario. It taught traditional life ways, while instilling a sense of self-confidence in the youth as they successfully completed the activities at the camp.69
3. Education and relationship building. The Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches still have relatively large numbers of Aboriginal members, so many of their initiatives focused on bringing their own Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members together. The Anglican Church has worked to help build understanding and counter stereotypes among its members through anti-racism training. The Roman Catholic entities were among the core funders of the Returning to Spirit: Residential School Healing and Reconciliation Program. The program brings Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants together to gain new insights into the residential school experience and to develop new communication and relationship-building skills.70
The Settlement Agreement churches bear a special responsibility to continue to support the long-term healing needs of Survivors, their families, and their communities, where people are still struggling with a range of health, social, and economic impacts. The closure of the national Aboriginal Healing Foundation in 2014 when government funding ended has left a significant gap in funding for community-based healing projects, at the very time when healing for many individuals and communities is still just beginning.71
The churches must also continue to educate their own congregations and facilitate dialogue between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples. Much has been accomplished through the healing and reconciliation projects of the Settlement Agreement churches, but more remains to be done.
61) We call upon church parties to the Settlement Agreement, in collaboration with Survivors and representatives of Aboriginal organizations, to establish permanent funding to Aboriginal people for:
i. Community-controlled healing and reconciliation projects.
ii. Community-controlled culture- and language-revitalization projects.
iii. Community-controlled education and relationship-building projects.
iv. Regional dialogues for Indigenous spiritual leaders and youth to discuss Indigenous spirituality, self-determination, and reconciliation.
The Commission believes that the circle of reconciliation must grow beyond the Settlement Agreement churches to include all faith communities. Together all peoples of faith have a critical role to play in the reconciliation process. Many faith communities offered expressions of reconciliation at TRC National Events. The following representative examples convey a sense of the range and scope of these public statements.
At the Saskatchewan National Event, the Reverend Bruce Adema, of the Christian Reformed Church of North American, presented a book on a series of paintings, Kisemanito Pakitinasuwin—The Creator’s Sacrifice, by Cree artist Ovide Bigetty. In presenting the book, Adema, as the director of Canadian Ministries, offered the first apology for residential schools and colonial policies from a church that had not run any residential schools.
Our church does not have a direct history of running Residential Schools in Canada. However, as members of the body of Christ in Canada we confess that the sins of assimilation and paternalism in Indian Residential Schools, and in wider government policy, are ours as the Christian Reformed Church. We are deeply sorry and pledge to walk the journey of reconciliation and healing with you.
This art also testifies to the presence of the Creator’s truth and beauty in Indigenous culture. It reminds us that the journey of faith, healing and reconciliation is one of sharing and mutual respect. The church and the nation of Canada are poorer because we refused to acknowledge the Creator’s truth and way as revealed to Indigenous people.72
Members of the Mennonite Central Committee Saskatchewan served on the regional working group and subcommittees that helped to plan the Saskatchewan National Event. They also worked as volunteers at the event. On their behalf, the Reverend Claire Ewert Fisher, the committee’s executive director, spoke about the complicity of Mennonites as members of the dominant Euro-Canadian society in supporting government policies of assimilation, including the residential school system.
Many people from the Mennonite community have come to this gathering to volunteer, to listen, to learn. We are on a path leading us to greater understanding. As members of the dominant culture, we regret our part in an assimilation practice that took away language use and cultural practice. We repent of our participation in the destructive acts of the dominant society. We thank you for your welcome to walk this path together as we move to a better and healthier tomorrow. We commit ourselves to walk with you, with your help.73
At the British Columbia National Event, representatives from the Jewish, Bahá’í, and Sikh faith communities offered expressions of reconciliation that made connections between their spiritual beliefs and the need for justice, healing, and reconciliation.
Rabbi Jonathan Infeld of Vancouver’s Congregation Beth Israel spoke about the importance of cultivating empathy from one’s own experience of suffering to become an effective witness to the stories of how others have suffered historically. For members of the Jewish community, their experience of the Holocaust is a source of empathy in approaching the topic of the residential schools. As an expression of the Jewish community’s desire for reconciliation in Canada, he invited all gathered to stand for a sacred moment as he blew a shofar—a trumpet made from a ram’s horn—which he then presented to the TRC. Rabbi Infeld explained that the shofar had been sounded over the preceding two weeks during the Jewish High Holy Days, including Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur—the Day of Atonement—which calls the faithful to repent of sins that have been committed. Quoting from the teaching of twelfth-century Jewish rabbi Maimonides, Infeld noted, “like an alarm clock, the shofar is meant to wake us up to the need to sacrifice, to give up or forsake former ways of thinking and acting, to atone for how we have wronged others.”74
Deloria Bighorn, chair of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’í of Canada, who is also a Survivor, spoke about some of the teachings of the Bahá’í faith concerning the process of reconciliation and its spiritual importance. The assembly’s expression of reconciliation said, among other things,
We believe that the pursuit of truth and reconciliation is intimately connected with the principle of justice. Justice is essential to truth and reconciliation alike. Justice is, first, made possible by developing the capacity to seek truth through our own eyes . . . [W]e must seek to recognize injustice and then see that justice is restored within our society and institutions . . .
When we speak of reconciliation we are referring to the movement towards peace and unity, and the individual and collective transformation that is required in order to achieve that goal. Reconciliation involves a process that contributes to the achievement of progressively greater degrees of unity and trust. Fundamentally, reconciliation is a spiritual process. It is the process of realizing the essential oneness of humanity in all dimensions of human life . . .
Canada shares the challenge of reconciliation with the rest of the human family. In our international relations, just as in our domestic ones, we need to recognize that we are all parts of an organic whole. How do we forge bonds of unity that respect and draw strength from our diversity? How can we overcome the forces of paternalism and prejudice with the powers of love and justice? What changes do we need to make to the structures of governance and the use of material resources in order to redress past injustices and social inequities? These are questions that we ask ourselves as citizens of a country that seeks reconciliation.75
Eight leaders of the Sikh community, including Prem Singh Vinning, as president of the World Sikh Organization of Canada, and leaders from Sikh gurdwaras in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, presented a statement and four videos to the TRC as an expression of reconciliation. The videos explore why the residential schools matter to Sikhs as Canadians, as peoples of faith, and as Sikhs—and serve to educate other members of the Sikh community by comparing the residential school story with the historical Sikh experiences of discrimination and cultural oppression. The Sikh leaders expressed their commitment to reconciliation in Canada.
Our faith requires us to come to the aid of our neighbours in their time of need. As a community, we Sikhs also know what it is like to have loved ones taken away, never to be seen again. Throughout our history we have also lost generations, and understand the struggle to freely practice our faith and preserve our language.
It takes incredible determination and fortitude to shine a light on a deep wound that has been hidden for so long. We would like to acknowledge all the survivors that stood up and began this process. It is not easy to be first. Your courage, tenacity and strength have helped pave the way for other residential school survivors to come forward as well.
But that is not all that you have accomplished. Your enduring valour has set an example and created a space in Canada where Canadians from diverse backgrounds can talk about their own experiences of genocide, tyranny and persecution. Many immigrants to this country understand these all too well.
As Sikhs, we have not yet had the opportunity to engage in truth telling and reconciliation as a community with respect to the thousands lost in India in 1984 and later. In this we will be looking to our Métis, First Nations, and Inuit brothers and sisters for inspiration as we work together to lay a foundation for a new way forward.76
At the Alberta National Event, representatives of the Canadian Council of Churches read a statement signed by the heads of the twenty-five denominations making up the council, an organization that represents 85% of Canadian Christians.
As Christians, we have been part of communities and governments that brought tremendous pressure to bear on you, and through actions of privilege, prejudice and discrimination sought to assimilate the Indigenous Peoples in this country. One of the most destructive of these actions was the creation of Indian Residential Schools, a system of assimilation in which a number of member churches of the Canadian Council of Churches played a prominent role. . . .
Christian denominations who were not involved directly in the creation and running of the Indian Residential Schools are also represented here today [in this statement]. As willing or unwilling accomplices to the terrible effects that so called Christian attitudes and policies had on your life and the lives of your peoples, we, too, live with the legacy of Indian Residential Schools . . .
We commit to respect the right and freedom of Indigenous communities to practise traditional spirituality and teachings. We commit to value the gifts of Indigenous traditional teachings in Christian worship and pastoral practices, where appropriate, in consultation with your Elders.77
A group of young Christians, including Mennonites, called the Honour Walkers told the Commission about their 550-kilometre walk from Stony Knoll, Saskatchewan, to the Alberta National Event in Edmonton to honour the stories of Survivors. One walker explained,
Although there were only four walkers walking for twenty days, there were also groups of students and congregations back home that fasted and prayed to recognize residential and day school Survivors. As a group of walkers, we represent communities that are wanting and needing to learn the history of residential schools. As our group walked across Treaty 6 [lands], we further learned the difficult history of the residential schools through community gatherings and passersby who stopped to share their stories. We celebrated the strengths and gifts of Indigenous peoples through ceremony and hospitality. We were also blessed by the many congregations who opened their doors for conversations on settler-Indigenous issues, including discussions on residential schools, Treaties, and land justice.78
Expressions of reconciliation offered at TRC National Events are an indicator that the circle is growing as other faith groups recognize that they must be involved in reconciliation concerning matters both of spirituality and of social justice.