Abuse In Residential Schools

Reconciliation of the atrocities of the residential school system began in the 1980s, when the majority of the schools had already been closed for good. The most iconic apologies came from former Prime Minister Stephen Harper and , both within only the past decade however. Harper’s formal apology, delivered to an audience of Indigenous delegates and subsequently broadcast by the CBC. Harper apologized for not only the “emotional, physical and sexual abuse and neglect of helpless children” but also remembering “a past that should have been completely different”. Harper’s apology marked the first time that a prime minister had apologized for the abuse in residential schools, although former Prime Minister Jean Chretien offered a statement that

was deemed to be “lip service” (CBC, 2015) by members of the aboriginal community. Most notable, was the religious ties that compelled the Vatican expression of sorrow in the hands of from Pope Benedict XVI. After a meeting by Aboriginal Chief Phil Fontaine with Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican released an official statement on the Catholic church’s role in the residential schools, writing that “His Holiness emphasized that acts of abuse cannot be tolerated in society” and “encouraging First Nations Peoples to continue to move forward with renewed hope” (CBC, 2015).

In particular, Chief Fontaine and other Canadian representatives “were rather struck by the depth of Pope Benedict XVI’s knowledge of the events surrounding the residential schools and the forceful way he spoke on the abuses” (CBC, 2015). The reception of these public statements in particular were mostly positive, but opponents who doubt the effectiveness of these apologies view them as the bare minimum the governments could have done. Political figures relying on the apology as a method of reconciliation has seen considerable criticism thrown their way, especially in the case of Jean Chretien’s apology in the 1990s. It is justified that public apology is the first, and most minimal, step any party should take to settle disputes, but on the other hand, is the fact that both Harper and Pope Benedict XVI’s statements were publicly addressed and well received that is most important. These two factors are the talking points of any well crafted apology - that the message is taken seriously by the wider

audience. Although an apology by itself cannot change historical events, both Harper and Pope Benedict XVI can be thanked for their apology that alerted the entire world of what had happened in Canada’s dark past; what they achieved was remarkable, in that increased media coverage led to more awareness that paved the way for the more direct forms of reconciliation, introduced below.
Another form of reconciliation pursued by the government in recent years in through financial compensation. The process began in March 1998, when the government made a Statement of Reconciliation, establishing the Aboriginal Healing Foundation (AHF). The Foundation was provided in $350 million as well, to fund healing projects and to address the legacy of physical and sexual abuse. This project was well-received by Canadians alike, and an additional $40 million was used to support the work of the AHF. This reconciliation was :taken to the next step in late 2005, when the Canadian government announced a $1.9 billion compensation package for the thousands of students still living in Canada” (Canadian Encyclopedia, 2014). National Chief Phil Fontaine stated that the package was for the "decades in time, innumerable events and countless injuries to First Nations individuals and communities". This slowly led to the development of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) announced a year later in 2006. The IRSSA was an explicit agreement between the government and the 86,000 former students of the residential school system. The IRSSA contained a controversial Common Experience Payment (CEP) that determined the eligibility and quantity of funds a victim is entitled to. The amount of compensation was based on the number of years a victim resided at the residential schools: “$10,000 for the first year attended (from one night residing there to a full school year) plus $3,000 for every year thereafter” (CBC, 2015). There was also, according to Indigenous speaker Dallas Yellowfly, who attended the 2017 St. George’s Global Stewardship Conference, an explicit scale that ranked the degree of physical and sexual abuse experienced. There would be “a form that would have things like degree 1 detentions, degree 4 beatings, or degree 10 rape,” and that “the higher the number on the scale, the more compensation you would get” (Yellowfly, 2017). Despite the generous amounts of money, these financial compensations faced intense backlash. The Common Experience Payment (CEP) faced harsh criticism for the way they handled the communication of such a sensitive topic. Many felt that the quantification of abuse was uncalled for, and simply insulting for the victims. Much of the indigenous population saw little benefit from the CEP’s payment. Described by Dallas Yellowfly, the flow of money was “wasted” as “many of the victims used the money they received to cope with the depression and other psychological scars that the residential system brought upon them” (Yellowfly, 2017). The money that the government had generously given could not have been used in any other way without explicit government direction, and this is the exact aspect of federal policy that has faced the brunt of this criticism. Unlike the funding of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation (AHF) that provided a productive counselling service as well as a dedicated knowledge base relating to the health impacts of residential schools, the financial compensation of the CEP provided little to no long-term benefit, due to the endless cycle of drug abuse and depression many victims were subjugated to.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established in late 2008, has been well received by the public and media, and perhaps marked “ the beginning of a new chapter in relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians” (CBC, 2015).

Unlike previous forms of reconciliation that focussed only on direct and immediate aid, the Truth and Reconciliation Commision had a long term goal in mind - to “repair the relationship” (Radio-Canada, 2015) that had so been strained. The first to take form was the final report submitted to the federal government - a detailed account, spanning nearly 4,000 pages, of what happened to indigenous children. The stories had such emotional depth that “each and every one of us who listened to them would go home at the end of each day and we would hold our children, our grandchildren, closer as we proceeded”, as Justice Murray Sinclair describes (Radio-Canada, 2015). Most significantly in this large scale project was the “publication of ninety-four "calls to action" urging all levels of government — federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal — to work together to change policies and … move forward with reconciliation” (CBC, 2015). With the calls in place, the Truth and Reconciliation seemed to set out to own the stories and experiences of Indigenous people as a method of education and awareness. With calls to further child welfare, education, language and culture, the ninety-four recommendations have been in action since the early 2010s,

with “positive effect” (TRC, 2013), as observed by the Truth and Reconciliation committee themselves. The legacy that the Truth and Reconciliation has brought continued progress to the reparation process, and its relative success is perhaps due to the system’s initially broad ambitions. It is immediately apparent that past reconciliation efforts that provided only temporary benefits, either in the form of an apology or through some variation of financial aid, while the Truth and Reconciliation truly had its sights set on a renewed harmonious relationship with the native population. The poignant stories of survivors have reached the heart of the public, and has in a way, enabled a larger participant base into the reconciliation process. The Truth and Reconciliation was a multifaceted process that has arguably shifted the relationship between the indigenous population and the rest of Canada to where it should have been all along, and also raised rather important questions on the future of First Nations culture. Since the inception of the Truth and Reconciliation, the domino effect of the program has seen progress even after the end its mandate in 2014, with many speakers encouraging the public to take on a more active role in this rebuilding process.
The residential school system has perhaps been North America’s most disturbing case of cultural genocide, and has almost severed the once rather cordial relationship between Aboriginals and the rest of Canada. The country has attempted to take responsibility, and a number of reconciliation efforts has taken form in the past decade - many thought, to say the least, have been quite controversial. As the most basic form of compensation, Harper and Pope Benedict's public statements publicized what had long been hidden by the federal government, and set the stage for the rather ineffective victim financial aid that would dominate the next decade. The Truth and Reconciliation Commision however steered Canada back into the right direction, and since its inception, a force that has transformed the country’s take on indigenous culture and rights.