Defining Reconciliation

Canadian Perspectives from the First National Event of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission

June 16-19, 2010

Nicki Ferland Bobbie Whiteman Janna Barkman

The research team would like to thank Mark Abotossaway for his help throughout
this process from research design to implementation. Mark conducted surveys,
operated the film equipment and kept us on task throughout the national event.
Mark is the child of a survivor of Shingwauk residential school in Sault Ste.
Marie. He reminded us everyday why reconciliation is so important for survivors,
their children and all Canadians. This report is dedicated to him and to all
survivors of residential school and their descendents.
In hopes that one day, we will all be ready for reconciliation.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1

Methodology 7
Profile of Respondents 7
Important Elements and a Working Definition 9
Possibilities and Challenges 12
Assessing the Role of the Commission and Truth-Telling 15
Actions and Apologies 18
Future Prospects 20

Summary of Key Points 24

Appendix I – Background: A Brief History of Residential Schools 26

Appendix II – Residential Schools Attended by Respondents 32
Appendix III – Respondents’ Residences 33
 INTRODUCTION

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) is the first effort of its kind—instituted in
an established democracy and created by the largest class action settlement in Canadian history—to
attempt reconciliation between the Indigenous peoples of the territory and the dominant settler society.
This transitional justice mechanism is also unique because it deals with abuses perpetrated mainly
against young children. The mandate for the TRC includes compiling an accurate history of the
residential school experience by gathering stories from former students, former employees and others
impacted by the schools; completing and publicizing a report with recommendations to and for all
parties; promoting awareness and education as well as statement gathering during its seven national
events; supporting community events; paying tribute to survivors through commemoration initiatives;
establishing a permanent, national resource centre accessible to the public; and finally, promoting a
process of reconciliation between and among all parties to the settlement, including former students of
residential schools, the churches responsible for the operation of the schools, individual perpetrators of
abuse and the government of Canada, but also the families and communities of survivors and the
Canadian public more generally.
“The truth of our common
experiences will help set our
Subsequent to its foundation, the TRC adopted the creed: ―The truth of our common experiences will
spirits free and pave the way to
help set our spirits free and pave the way to reconciliation.‖ The role of truth is rather straightforward;
reconciliation.”
reconciliation, on the other hand, is more complex. Truth does not simply lead to reconciliation; it is but
one, albeit important, aspect. Bridging this gap between truth and reconciliation has often confounded
endeavours in a variety of countries around the world, such as Chile and South Africa.1 The TRC
understands reconciliation to be an ongoing individual and collective process that requires participation
from all those impacted by residential schools, including all of the parties mentioned above.2 Within two
years, the Commission will issue its preliminary report and within five, will complete its work. Jennifer
Llewellyn argues that ―[t]he commission cannot hope to achieve reconciliation within the span of its
five-year mandate; thus, its work must be about preparing and equipping people for the journey that
must be walked in the future.‖3
1
See, for example, analyses in Tristan Anne Borer, ed., Telling the Truths: Truth Telling and Peace Building in Post-
Conflict Societies (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006), and Carol A.L. Prager and Trudy
Govier, eds., Dilemmas of Reconciliation: Cases and Concepts (Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press,
2003).
2
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, brochure, http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/pdfs/
TRC_brochure_en_final.pdf (accessed August 15, 2010), 5.
3
Jennifer Llewellyn, ―Bridging the Gap Between Truth and Reconciliation: Restorative Justice and the Indian Resi-
dential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission,‖ in From Truth to Reconciliation: Transforming the Legacy of
Residential Schools, ed. Marlene Brant Castellano, Linda Archibald and Mike DeGagné (Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing
Foundation, 2008), 200. 1

“The commission cannot hope
to achieve reconciliation within
the span of its five-year
mandate; thus, its work must be
about preparing and equipping
people for the journey that must
be walked in the future.”
2
The research team4 believed that the national event occurring in Winnipeg presented a unique
opportunity to investigate the concept of reconciliation as well as to expand and focus the
reconciliation dialogue. Reconciliation research conducted in Winnipeg is significant for other
reasons. The TRC’s headquarters have moved to Portage and Main, an important intersection in the
geography of Canada and in the history of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relations. Justice Sinclair
explained the relocation by stating: ―our presence here is a statement that we are now part of the West
and the part of the country where the majority of survivors are located.‖5 Also, Winnipeg boasts the
largest number of Aboriginal people of all the major cities in Canada. ―[T]he size, proportion and
geographical concentration of Winnipeg’s Aboriginal community make it qualitatively unique among
Canadian cities.‖6
The TRC’s first national event was held in Winnipeg from June 16 to 19, 2010. This event was an
opportunity for education, healing and reconciliation, the cornerstone of which was statement
gathering. The national event was situated at the Forks, where the Red River and Assiniboine River
meet; a historical gathering place of Aboriginal people. Over a dozen tents were erected during the
mostly outdoor event. The event was geared towards achieving the holistic balance between the
emotional, mental, physical and spiritual realms. Large white tents housed opportunities for
survivors, their families, and others at the event to gather, discuss, and explore themes related to
residential schools, truth-telling and reconciliation. There were the Rekindling the Fire and the Mind,
Spirit, Body tents geared towards holistic healing and cultural supports. There were also tents focused
on education, such as the Learning Tent and the Métis and Inuit Experience tents. The Interfaith Tent
allowed representatives of the churches responsible for the operation of the schools to interact with
survivors. There were photo and art exhibitions, sporting demonstrations, sharing and witnessing, two
days of concerts featuring Aboriginal artists and a pow-wow to complete the event.
4
The study was conducted by a research team comprised of three University of Winnipeg students under the supervision
of Dr. Dean Peachey, Visiting Professor in Transitional Justice, Vice President of the Global College and recently ap-
pointed Coordinator of the Human Rights and Global Studies Program. We would like to extend a warm and sincere
thank you to Dr. Peachey for his guidance, feedback and welcomed participation throughout the research study. The
main research team, Nicki Ferland, Bobbie Whiteman and Janna Barkman, are fourth-year students pursuing a Bacca-
laureate of Arts in the Human Rights and Global Studies (HRGS) degree program; this research was conducted as part
of the HRGS program. Ferland is Métis, Whiteman and Barkman are both non-Aboriginal.
5
CBC News, ―New-Look Reconciliation Commission Settling into Winnipeg,‖ (December 30, 2009),
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/12/30/mb-residential-schools-commission-winnipeg.html (accessed
March 25, 2010).
6
Manitoba Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, ―Aboriginal People in Manitoba 2000 – Focus: Winnipeg,‖
http://www.gov.mb.ca/ana/apm2000/6/i html (accessed March 25, 2010).
The tents proved slightly impractical during the middle two days when violent winds, rain and tornado
warnings led to the cancellation or relocation of certain activities. Statement gathering, the Sharing
Circle, where survivors could share their experience with the commissioners and members of the
public, and the academic conference on transitional justice took place irrespective of the elements. The
harsh weather conditions,
however, were not powerful
enough to drive away the
thousands of people who
participated in one or
another truth and
reconciliation activity, nor to
prevent the music, dancing
and drumming or the
ceremonies that took place The Meeting Place
during the four-day event. It “This park commemorates the
was estimated that dynamic spirit of human
throughout the duration, interactions that began over six
40,000 individuals went thousand years ago here at the
junction of the Red and
through the Forks.
Assiniboine rivers. It is
In light of the lasting impacts dedicated to all those who came
that residential schools have to the Forks and shared their
had on Aboriginal persons visions for a better future.
and communities (see Their hopes and dreams became
Appendix I for Background) the Canadian West.”
and because healing is not only for survivors but also for the perpetrators of the residential school
system and for the moral conscience of all Canadians, the researchers present the findings with an
understanding that reconciliation is a process that involves all Canadians, Aboriginal and other. The
residential school legacy did not end when the last school closed in 1996, it continues to impact
Aboriginal children today. And as this legacy continues to have an effect on new generations of
Aboriginal people, so too must new generations of non-Aboriginal Canadians partake in the shared
responsibility of making reconciliation a reality. The researchers believe that the reconciliation journey
begins with everyone acknowledging their individual role to play and includes making a concerted
effort towards addressing the effects of residential schools including the marginalization and
discrimination facing Aboriginal peoples in the present. However, while considering these notions, the
researchers began to wonder, just what is reconciliation and what does it entail? 3

“We realized that there are a
number of prerequisites, as the
first prerequisite: you need to
be very clear about where you
want to go and sitting down and
defining reconciliation is really
step number one.”
4 1992), 64.
The objective of this study was to explore the various understandings of reconciliation of former
students of residential schools and other persons attending the national event in June. Piet Meiring, a
member of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission invited to speak at the academic
conference, stated that ―we realized [in South Africa] that there are a number of prerequisites, as the
first prerequisite: you need to be very clear about where you want to go and sitting down and defining
reconciliation is really step number one.‖8 Therefore, the first task on any journey towards
reconciliation is to define it and to decide where we are going, because without a working definition
and a forward-looking gaze, what do we work towards? But reconciliation is a vast, complicated and
multifaceted phenomenon. For instance, at a lecture that the researchers attended in April, the Chair of
the TRC, Justice Murray Sinclair, noted that the commissioners had produced a list of 156 definitions
of reconciliation.9 And in terms of understanding what reconciliation might mean to various Aboriginal
peoples, Rupert Ross argues that applying one culture’s term to another culture’s concept, particularly
when the concept is so abstract, is an obstacle.10 It is especially challenging to build a comprehensive
definition when working with individuals from different cultural backgrounds and language groups.
The research team developed a questionnaire to survey the national event participants’ understandings
of reconciliation in order to help us begin to understand what reconciliation means and what it takes.
Our most significant goal was to develop a working definition of reconciliation. On top of this, we
aimed to discover whether reconciliation was conceived of primarily as a personal, community or
national process in the Canadian context. Numerous debates abound in the field of transitional justice
as to whether reconciliation is achievable on an individual basis or whether it exists to restore social
relations to pre-conflict norms (some allude to ―conciliation,‖ arguing that good relations never existed
in the pre-conflict/pre-atrocity society and that the resolution must involve building a whole new
relationship from nothing). From the Truth Commissions of South Africa to Chile, reconciliation was
envisaged as a national goal, essential to building a sustainable peace and restoring relations broken by
violence or oppression. On an individual level, the reconciliation process could restore the dignity of
the victim and build his capacity to deal with his experience. Nationally, reconciliation was attainable
because of a growing awareness of the abuses that had taken place and of the changing status quo (the
realization, for instance, that prevalent myths and the beliefs informing prejudices no longer held true).
For the individual, there was the opportunity for acknowledgement, redress and forgiveness.
8
Piet Meiring, interview by Nicki Ferland, The Forks, Winnipeg, June 17, 2010.
9
Justice Murray Sinclair, ―Is there a Traditional Perspective of Truth and Reconciliation,‖ lecture presented at the Uni-
versity of Manitoba’s Aboriginal Education Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, April 23, 2010.
10
Rupert Ross, Dancing with a Ghost: Exploring Indian Reality (Markham, Ontario: Octopus Publishing Group,
With these considerations in mind, we were also interested in observing how Canadians understood
reconciliation and to what extent they believed that reconciliation on an individual, community or
national level was possible. The major challenges thwarting the possibility of a successful
reconciliation process were issues that we wanted to uncover. Because we are exploring reconciliation
in terms of the
work being
conducted by the
TRC, we also
wanted to
examine the role
of the
Commission, and
in terms of their
work, we also
looked at the role What will Canada look like
that truth-telling once reconciliation has been
plays in achieved?
reconciliation.
The team aimed
to uncover the
steps necessary
for achieving
reconciliation,
paying particular
attention to the
public apologies delivered by church representatives and the Prime Minister of Canada. Looking to the
future, the team was interested in discovering what the end-product of reconciliation is: what
reconciliation would look like once it has been achieved.

The national event provided an opportunity to sample peoples’ understandings from a number of
cultures and provinces across Canada and was the first opportunity to seriously engage the non-
Aboriginal community in the work of the TRC. A relatively national poll of both Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal respondents was important to the researchers because of the different perspectives which
ultimately inform our understandings and our willingness to engage in reconciliation.
5
 Dean Peachey hypothesized ―is it possible that our respective worldviews shape not only our under-
standings not only of the means by which reconciliation is achieved, but also whether reconciliation
is seen as desirable and achievable?‖11

The national event was the most valuable opportunity yet in which to visit divergent perspectives on
the central question: what exactly is reconciliation? The researchers hope to continue developing the
definition and understandings of reconciliation over the next six national events and throughout the
journey of reconciliation in Canada.

―Is it possible that our

respective worldviews shape not
only our understandings not
only of the means by which
reconciliation is achieved, but
also whether reconciliation is
seen as desirable and
achievable?”

11
Italics in original. Dean E. Peachy, ―The Elusive Quest for Reconciliation in Northern Uganda,‖ (Ottawa: Interna-
tional Development Research Centre, 2010), 19.

6
 METHODOLOGY

One hundred responses were collected from participants during the national event from two sources: a
brief survey and a further in-depth interview. One hundred participants conducted either the survey or
the interview, and in a couple of cases, both. Responses to the open-ended questions in the surveys and
interviews were coded into common themes and categories for the purposes of this analysis. Due to the
weather conditions, fewer surveys and interviews were conducted than hoped for. Ninety-five surveys
were conducted in total. The survey followed a structured protocol consisting of a combination of
fourteen fixed-choice and open-ended questions, and generally took 15-20 minutes to complete. A
small percentage of surveys were administered orally by any one member of the research team, a few
were conducted by participants of the event at a later date on a secure online survey before the
appointed deadline, but most were filled out by respondents themselves during the national event.

The recorded interviews, all conducted by a single member of

the research team, consisted of eight to twelve open-ended
questions, depending on the breadth of participants’ responses
and generally took 30-45 minutes to complete. Seven What is reconciliation?
interviews were recorded in total including five residential
schools survivors, one from Ontario, three from Manitoba and
one from Quebec, one non-Aboriginal Canadian who
represented the White Nation during the Four Direction Drum
Calling, a ceremony held in the mornings at the event, and a
member of the South African Truth and Reconciliation
Commission. Certain questions were asked during the
interview in addition to those in the survey, such as what role
forgiveness plays in reconciliation. For these findings, please
see the accompanying video summary.

Profile of Respondents

Gender Age
Under
Female Male Did not specify 20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60+

49 48 3 4% 11% 13% 24% 27% 20%

7
 Identified as
Non-
First Nations Inuit Métis Aboriginal
63.7% 3.3% 7.7% 25.3%

Thirty-six persons, or 52% of Aboriginal respondents12, stated that they attended at least one residential
school throughout their lives. Twenty-nine of these respondents shared the name of the school(s) they
attended (see Appendix II for a map and listing of residential schools attended by respondents). Fifty-
eight, or 84% of Aboriginal participants, had at least one family member who attended residential
school.

Three quarters of participants Age of Survivors Age of Intergenerational Survivors

were Aboriginal. 52% of these Under
respondents attended at least 31-40 41-50 51-60 60+ 20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60+
one residential school and 84% 3 10 9 6 3 5 5 16 13 10
had at least one family member
who attended a residential Of the 94 participants who responded to the question of where they are from, five were from outside of
school. Canada (South Africa, Australia, Germany, Ecuador and Palestine). Eighty-nine of the respondents live
within Canadian territory (see Appendix III for a map of respondents’ residences):

Alberta 4 4.49%
Saskatchewan 6 6.74%
Northwest Territories 2 2.25%
Manitoba 46 51.69%
Ontario 25 28.09%
Quebec 4 4.49%
Maritimes 2 2.25%

12
For the sake of this analysis, the term Aboriginal encompasses persons of First Nations, Inuit or Métis descent.
8
Important Elements and a Working Definition

For many of the respondents, this was the first time they had been asked to think about the components
of reconciliation and, ultimately, to define reconciliation. The comment made by one interview
participant, ―I don’t even know what that word means,‖ was expressed by many at the event who
stopped by the tent where we conducted much of our surveys. A survey respondent stated ―What I’ve
gone through at IRS personally, I still find it hard to understand what ―reconciliation‖ is.‖ Participants
were asked to look past any conceptions that they have perhaps read about or heard about concerning
the meaning of reconciliation, as the researchers were seeking their personal understandings.
Concerning the components or elements of reconciliation, in 33% of cases,13 respondents listed
revealing truth and revisiting the subject of residential schools for both survivors and the general public
as the most important. Awareness of the residential school experience was thus the most identified
component required for reconciliation. Twelve percent said that it would involve all parties. Three
quarters of those who responded this way are survivors, demonstrating the overall willingness of “I don’t even know what that
survivors to engage with any and all parties in order to accomplish reconciliation. word means.”

Other components listed included acceptance/tolerance of each other (10%); making and accepting
apologies (9%), maintaining traditional ways or reclaiming culture (9%), and would involve justice or
perpetrators owning up to their crimes (both 8%). It should be noted that the Aboriginal conception of
justice is less punitive and retributive than the Western view of justice; justice conceived of by
Aboriginal cultures is often restorative, aimed at restoring right relations between those impacted by the
wrong-doing. James Youngblood Henderson reiterates that aggressive assimilation attempts, such as
residential schools, and the ―unjust relationships with colonizers and their institutions…oblige us to
practice justice as healing, not punishment.‖14 Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, in general, are
restorative justice mechanisms because of their focus on victims, encounter processes like the
community and national events, and their forward-looking gaze towards the possibility of
reconciliation.

13
In this analysis, and in most of the interview questions discussed below, participants were responding to open-ended
questions. They could (and often did) provide more than one response to a given question. The percentages reported
here refer to the proportion of people who gave a particular type of response. The percentages reported, therefore,
may add up to more than 100 percent.
14
James (Sa’ke’j) Youngblood Henderson, Indigenous Diplomacy and the Rights of Peoples: Achieving UN Recogni-
tion (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Purich Publishing, 2008), 11. 9
 What, then, will it take to achieve ―reconciliation?‖ At an informal lunch and later during his recorded
interview, South Africa TRC member, Piet Meiring, expressed this when asked to define reconciliation:

“Reconciliation means getting
your pen back.”
Desmond Tutu has a very beautiful story that he uses often to explain this. He says imagine
yourself in an office and the manager of the office shows off a beautiful golden fountain pen that
his wife gave him; it was their wedding anniversary and he’s so chuffed with his pen and he shows
it around and everybody ooh’s and ahh’s. A few days later, the pen disappears and it’s a crisis. His
wife is cross with him: is that what he thinks of her wedding present? Is that what he thinks of her
love? And the office people are looking with wooden eyes at one another: who has taken their
boss’s pen? And everything is awry and it is difficult in the office. Then one day, a man hesitantly
comes in to the office of the boss and says ―Sir, I am so sorry, I have to tell you I took the pen. I’ve
never seen such a beautiful pen and I would never own one and I could never resist it and I took
your pen. But I realize what I have done to you and your wife and to the office and I’m so sorry.
Can you please forgive me?‖ And the boss, the manager, gets up and he embraces the man and says
―Of course I forgive you, thank you for coming to the fore. Now peace will settle in my home,
peace will settle in the office. Thank you and I forgive you.‖ And they embrace one another. The
man goes out and the manager sits down, then suddenly jumps up and runs after the man and says
―I’d like to have my pen back. I’d like to have my pen back, please.‖ Reconciliation means getting
your pen back.15

This story exemplifies many of the elements of the reconciliation process already underway in the
Canadian context. Reconciliation involves acknowledging and apologizing for the wrong-doing, asking
for and/or granting forgiveness, and ultimately, justice or getting your pen back.

The crux of this analysis, however, lies in defining what this concept really means to Canadians. In
response to the open-ended question of how they understood ―reconciliation‖ in the Canadian context
in relation to residential schools, participants defined reconciliation in several ways. In 27% of cases,
respondents defined reconciliation as healing. Nearly sixty percent of those who responded in this
fashion identified as an Aboriginal person but only 7% identified as a survivor. A survivor explained
―better terms are recovery, hope and balance.‖ A participant stated that reconciliation meant ―fixing
something that is not necessarily physical, but more spiritual or emotional.‖ Another survivor answered
―Reconciliation: a step beyond healing.‖ Healing, or restoration of some sort, is therefore a vital part of

15
Piet Meiring, interview by Nicki Ferland, The Forks, Winnipeg, June 17, 2010.
10
the process. It is crucial because of the level of trauma permeating survivors and their communities due
to the degree of physical, sexual, cultural and spiritual abuse that they experienced in residential school.
Healing is not only for direct survivors, this trauma has also been transmitted to those near survivors—
their descendents and communities. Arguably, healing is also for perpetrators; the lack of participation
from members of the perpetrator group might indicate a certain degree of trauma that they have
experienced as a result of this process.16 In 26% of cases, participants responded that reconciliation
meant coming together or uniting on a community or national scale (nearly half of those who gave this
response are survivors). An Aboriginal participant defined reconciliation: ―to meet altogether again.‖
Twenty percent described it as moving forward; one Aboriginal respondent clarified: ―Reconciliation –
the ability to look back and move forward.‖ Seventeen percent defined it as a return to a harmonious
relationship between all Canadian peoples (only slightly more than a third of participants who
responded this way identified as Aboriginals, all of whom are survivors). A survivor remarked that
reconciliation was ―working together to make peace.‖ Fifteen percent described it as forgiveness
(nearly half of those who mentioned forgiveness are survivors) and 14% said that it meant either
making amends (nearly eighty percent Aboriginal) and/or coming to terms with or letting go of the “Reconciliation: a step beyond
residential school legacy. A church representative responded to the question of how to define healing.”
reconciliation with: ―From the side of the government and churches, humbly acknowledging the hurt
and suffering caused by them and seeking forgiveness. From the First Nations side, responding with
generosity, accepting the apology, granting forgiveness and moving on.‖ This statement, while valid,
demonstrates that reconciliation is often more costly and difficult for victims than for perpetrators.

A respondent noted that ―reconciliation is the act of balancing, negotiating, and amalgamating
perspectives.‖ Appropriating this comment for our purposes, balancing and amalgamating perspectives,
we find that reconciliation in the Canadian context, then, can be broadly defined as a healing process
for individuals, communities and society via truth-sharing and witnessing. This process may include
perpetrators making amends, survivors engaging in forgiveness and anyone impacted coming to terms
with the past and letting go of their pain in order to move forward. It involves all parties coming
together and uniting to establish/return to a positive relationship between all peoples for future
generations.

16
Piet Meiring argued that the rampant denial of the truth in South Africa during its truth and reconciliation period
demonstrated that ―the Afrikaner in particular has been traumatized by the process.‖ Antjie Krog, Country of My
Skull: Guilt, Sorrow, and the Limits of Forgiveness in the New South Africa (South Africa: Random House South
Africa, 1998), 217. Also, it is noteworthy and unfortunate that the Settlement Agreement in Canada granted perpetra-
tors unconditional amnesty, not predicated upon their participation in the process like in the South African case.
11

“The more people that are
healed in the community, the
more healthy our community
will be.”
12
Possibilities and Challenges
Many participants alluded to the process of reconciliation, whereby the journey begins at a personal
level, healed individuals help generate a healthy community and that once individual and community
reconciliation have been achieved, societal reconciliation can follow. One respondent remarked that
personal reconciliation would determine the success of community and national reconciliation. She
noted that the likelihood of individual reconciliation was promising and that the others were possible.
An interview participant noted that ―the more people that are healed in the community, the more
healthy our community will be.‖17 Intergenerationally, reconciliation was understood not as a personal
process, but something undertaken for the benefit of the descendents of survivors or for future
generations. Individual and intergenerational reconciliation were the understandings referred to most
often, whereas community and national reconciliation were mentioned about half as often. However,
the numbers show that most participants viewed all three levels of reconciliation as relatively important
to one another.
The TRC is mandated to foster reconciliation between and within survivors, families, communities, the
churches, the government and the Canadian public. A five point scale was used to ascertain
respondents’ conceptions of how possible reconciliation is as either a personal, community or national
endeavour. Of the ninety responses to the question of whether reconciliation was possible on a personal
level, almost half of the respondents (40) said that the possibility of individual reconciliation was
promising, only two said that it was impossible. When asked the same question about community
reconciliation, of ninety-one respondents, 30 answered that community reconciliation was possible, 29
said that it was promising and one said it was impossible. Lastly, of the ninety participants who
responded to the question regarding national reconciliation, the majority of participants (28) responded
that the opportunity for national reconciliation was promising and seven said that it was impossible.
Aboriginal participants found personal or individual reconciliation to be the most promising of the
three levels and national reconciliation to be the least possible.
17
Delaney Sharpe, interview by Nicki Ferland, The Forks, Winnipeg, June 18, 2010.
Interestingly, many of the respondents who listed challenges embedded in structure and unequal
relationships, such as systematic discrimination and racially prejudiced legal instruments, still
responded positively to the possibility of national reconciliation. For many of the attendees who we had
conversations with during the national event, it was the possibility of national reconciliation that made
it more important to address the challenges and hardships, as well as more necessary to focus on truth-
telling and relationship building. There would be no incentive to attend and support TRC initiatives if
there was no prospect of reconciliation, at any level, in the future.

In response to the question of the major challenges facing the possibility of reconciliation, in 27% of
cases, participants answered that the government posed a challenge in one or more capacities;
participants mentioned lack of government (and church) accountability, lack of political will and
funding opportunities as well as the federal government trying to involve themselves in the affairs of “Reconciliation was one word I
the TRC and neglecting the autonomy of the Commission. Seventy percent of those who pointed to the didn’t want anything to do with.
government as the greatest challenge to reconciliation are Aboriginal. Sixteen percent responded that I didn’t want to think of
ignorance or a lack of understanding concerning the impact that residential schools have had on forgiving the nuns and priests
Aboriginal persons was the greatest challenges (nearly ninety percent of those who gave this response who had hurt me. I don’t think
are Aboriginal). Fifteen percent responded that an unwillingness or inability to engage in the spirit of like that now.”
reconciliation posed a challenge; this reluctance stems from indifference, denial, anger or fear. One
participant now on their own healing journey wrote, ―Reconciliation was one word I didn’t want
anything to do with. I didn’t want to think of forgiving the nuns and priests who had hurt me. I don’t
think like that now.‖ Thirteen percent mentioned prejudice or racism (over 60% Aboriginal) and 11%
spoke to the ongoing oppression of Aboriginal peoples as the ultimate challenges facing the possibility
of reconciliation. For instance, when asked about the TRC’s role in the reconciliation process, 7%
responded that the mandate of the TRC was not broad enough and that the focus on residential schools
left much of the impacts of colonialism and the effects of historical trauma on the cutting room floor.
One participant asked, ―is the TRC blind to the issues we face on/off reserve?‖

13

The TRC should continue to
engage the public in truth and
reconciliation activities beyond
its five year mandate.
14
Only 6% of participants alluded to the intergenerational effects of residential schools as a possible
challenge (not a single participant who responded in this fashion was a survivor). However, many of
the survivors and others that we spoke to informally about the research project mentioned the
importance of intergenerational healing and reconciliation within families.
In 4% of cases, when asked about the major challenges facing the possibility of reconciliation,
participants responded that the five year mandate of the TRC was not long enough to foster
reconciliation or to accomplish healing. Five percent of participants acknowledged that reconciliation
was a lengthy process, 11% said that reconciliation would take many generations to accomplish.
Responding to the question of what role the TRC plays in reconciliation, in 8% of cases, respondents
replied that the TRC should
continue to engage the public in
truth and reconciliation activities
beyond its five year mandate.
Assessing the Role of the Commission and Truth-Telling

In 46% of cases, participants responded that the TRC’s role in reconciliation was education and
awareness. Survivors responded that education/awareness was the main role of the TRC. Twelve
percent found
that their task
was to enable
occasions of
participation
and dialogue.
The TRC
should continue The TRC should continue to set
to set the stage the stage for reconciliation
for through public education and
reconciliation encounter.
through public
education and
encounter. The
Commission
should continue
to expand and
develop the
trc.ca website
to include the
current work and events of the TRC and more information and resources regarding residential schools
generally. The website could be an accessible site for public education and awareness-raising for both
survivors and the general public. The TRC should enhance opportunities for survivors, perpetrators and
Canadians more generally to meet with one another. Encounter is a crucial part of acknowledgement
and, ultimately, of reconciliation. Formally and informally, in both surveys and interviews, survivors
mentioned that the lack of opportunities to speak to abusers about their experience, to understand why
the abuses were perpetrated and the option to engage in one-on-one forgiveness with their respective
perpetrators were major obstacles on their journey towards reconciliation. Perhaps a virtual encounter
site could be most accessible on a national scale and an opportunity for survivors to engage with the
Canadian public in hopes of fostering understanding and establishing a positive relationship.
15

“They can be my reps for
reconciliation. Meegwetch.”
16
Eighteen percent answered that the Commission’s role was to facilitate opportunities for healing. Over
the course of the event, the researchers held several informal conversations with survivors and others
who did not wish to complete a survey. Many were not ready to come forward to share their stories of
abuse and cruelty with the Commission. However, these survivors and others impacted by the
residential schools might one day be ready to share their stories; facilitating a permanent forum
extending beyond the five-year mandate of the TRC for such sharing opportunities could be a healing
initiative. Also, a survivor noted that ―the story may need to be told again and again and again as
people continue to remember.‖
Many survivors noted that the TRC commissioners are the right people for the job, or as one
respondent noted, the ―Turtle is strong with them.‖ The representation of turtle contextualizes the role
of the TRC as the vehicle of communication and truth. Piet Meiring noted that the work of a
commissioner is ―not for the weak-kneed or the lily-livered, it’s for the people who really mean
business.‖18 He stated that as bridge builders, the commissioners should prepare themselves to be
walked over by both sides. A survey participant stated, ―as far as what type of work needs to be done
for reconciliation, I believe the best method applied is the bridge building aspect of it. It is the positive
relationships of the future that will help heal the damaged ones of the past.‖ A further 20% said that the
Commission’s role was to support Aboriginal peoples and survivors (half of those who gave this
response are survivors). A participant exclaimed, ―They can be my reps for reconciliation.‖ Another
stated that their duty was ―to be a voice for those who cannot speak out.‖ The Commission should
continue to act as emissaries for survivors, helping Canadians and parties to the Settlement
Agreement19 hear their voices.
In both formal and informal conversations with participants of the event, truth-telling was seen as a
positive and productive process. The results demonstrate that attendees of the national event
a) regarded truth-telling as a de facto part of reconciliation, and b) acknowledged that the TRC’s
various events including the national event were centered on truth-telling. In 49% of cases, participants
responded that the role of truth-telling in reconciliation was to expose what happened in order to
determine the whole story and to inform an accurate historical record of the residential school
experience; of these, 7% said that exposing what happened what important to ensure that it never
happens again.
18
Piet Meiring, interview by Nicki Ferland, The Forks, Winnipeg, June 17, 2010.
19
See Appendix I for more information about the Settlement Agreement.
However, the role of truth-telling in reconciliation is multifaceted. Fifteen percent of respondents said
that survivors’ truths would form the basis of reconciliation. One survivor responded that informing the
general public of the truth was integral to creating support for a reconciliation strategy. Seventeen
percent said that the stories being collected were a crucial part of acknowledging and understanding
that experience. Understanding the lasting legacy of the residential schools requires an understanding
of the pathway of devastation and trauma that resulted from cultural disconnection and genocidal
policy realized over a century in the residential school system. Truth-gathering has a role beyond
writing an accurate history and creating a shared memory for Canadians to creating a sense of
responsibility and accountability for the plight of Aboriginal peoples. It is an occasion for us to learn
that colonization is not only significant to the history of Aboriginal peoples but to the history and future
of all Canadians. Truth can provide an opportunity to address a centuries worth of racist myths and
stereotypes regarding ―Aboriginal inferiority,‖ which have laid the foundation for the systematic
marginalization and discrimination of Aboriginal peoples. Brian Rice and Anna Snyder noted that
―[e]xposing the role that myths and stereotypes play in conflict, past and present, is critical to the “People need to be able to tell
reconciliation process.‖20 their stories and have us non-
Aboriginal people be willing to
Fourteen percent responded that truth was an integral part of the healing process. A participant listen. For so long their truth
observed that ―truth-telling is essential to the healing process of both the offenders and the survivors. has been either denied or shut
We have to know what happened if we are to find ways to heal.‖ Garnering truth from all sides is vital down.”
for creating a national memory. A participant who had family in residential school noted that he had
only heard from the victims’ side and was thus missing an important piece of the story: why the abuse
had been perpetrated. Fifteen percent said that truth collection was a way to give a voice to the
survivors. From statement gathering, photographs, art displays and educational tents, the national event
provided a safe place for survivors to tell their story and, critically, for others to give witness to their
experiences. As one participant responded, ―People need to be able to tell their stories and have us non-
Aboriginal people be willing to listen. For so long their truth has been either denied or shut down.‖ The
denial is not one-sided either, a survivor who participated in the recorded interview noted that the
experiences are so awful that even for survivors, ―it’s unreal to some people, it could never
happen…‖21

20
Brian Rice and Anna Snyder, ―Reconciliation in the Context of a Settler Society: Healing the Legacy
of Colonialism in Canada,‖ in From Truth to Reconciliation; Transforming the Residential Schools, ed.
Marlene Brant Castellano, Linda Archibald and Mike DeGagne (Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Founda-
tion, 2008), 54.
21
Delaney Sharpe, interview by Nicki Ferland, The Forks, Winnipeg, June 18, 2010. 17
 Actions and Apologies

Reconciliation is not a process that can be imposed on an individual or society, rather it must come
from within an individual or the society in question. Participants were asked to outline both steps that
have been taken towards reconciliation and steps that ought to be taken. In 19% of cases, participants
mentioned the public apologies delivered by the federal government and the churches responsible for
the operation of the schools as a step taken towards reconciliation. When asked to respond to what
extent the apologies issues by the federal government and the churches responsible for the operation of
residential schools contributed to the possibility of reconciliation, 43 participants answered,
―somewhat‖, whereas another 40 responded closer to ―not at all,‖ and only 13 responded closer to ―a
lot.‖ Not a single survivor responded that the apologies contributed a lot. An intergenerational
participant whose mother had attended residential school responded that the apologies had contributed
somewhat to the possibility of reconciliation but noted that there was an opportunity for them to
“It’s only as good as what contribute a lot if the government and churches consistently participate in the reconciliation process. A
follows it.” common stance heard in both formal and informal conversations was that the apologies mean very little
to survivors and descendents when they are not followed by action. One interview participant stated
―it’s only as good as what follows it.‖22 Another asked, ―is apology enough for all the pain and all the
suffering we had?‖23 The results and feedback of this particular question made it evident that the
particular ―blanket‖ apologies of the federal government and churches were not effective. Although
they were named as a step on the road to reconciliation, there is no evidence to show that apologies in
general made a significant contribution to reconciliation.

Other steps participants have seen include the 15% who responded that sharing their stories and talking
about their residential school experiences was their first step taken towards reconciliation, which may
speak to the healing nature of truth-sharing. A participant stated, ―for me as a former student,
[reconciliation] means working out things from the past and healing and moving on. While I am still
alive, I’ll talk about the experience.‖ A further 10% answered that the community events or first
national event of the TRC were the first step they had seen .

22
Chad Cornell, interview by Nicki Ferland, The Forks, Winnipeg, July 19, 2010.
23
18 Albert Ottereyes, interview by Nicki Ferland, The Forks, Winnipeg, July 18, 2010.
One participant noted that reconciliation is ―all nations drumming together,‖ alluding to the Four
Direction Drum Calling, a ceremony held in the mornings at the national event where the Red Nation
(represented by persons of Aboriginal descent), the Yellow Nation (Asian descent), the Black Nation
(African descent) and the White Nation (European descent) drummed together. Interestingly, only 4%
said that the Common Experience Payment (CEP) or the Independent Assessment Program (IAP),
which inform the reparations program delineated by the Settlement Agreement, were a step towards
reconciliation. This may correlate with the underlying view that the CEP and the IAP does not fulfill
certain components of reconciliation, such as acknowledgment and bringing people together, or may
demonstrate that individual compensation is not of utmost importance in a process of reconciliation.

Reconciliation is “all nations

drumming together.”

19

“The first step is creating real,
face-to-face, non-exploitative
relationships with Aboriginal
peoples and communities.”
20
Concerning steps that ought to be taken, 6% responded that reconciliation required the creation of a
mutually beneficial relationship between Aboriginal persons, the government and the general public. A
non-Aboriginal respondent answered ―The first step is creating real, face-to-face, non-exploitative
relationships with Aboriginal peoples and communities.‖ It is through education and understanding
regarding the historical and contemporary reality of our relationship that we might change our present
circumstances and build a new relationship. A couple of the interview participants noted that a vital
step was proper education for all students, every Canadian child, on Aboriginal identity, history,
languages and cultures.24 It may be that the fruits of reconciliation will only be realized by the evolving
perspectives of future generations.
Five percent mentioned that encounter between perpetrators and victims of residential schools would be
the first step. Four percent answered that a vital step would be for more Elders to share their residential
school experiences as well as participate in residential school healing initiatives. Several respondents
asked for a forum where more Elders could share their residential school experiences. People look to
the Elders for wisdom, knowledge, understanding and guidance. Healing for Elders is a vital first step
in order that they be able to guide others. More and continued funding for culturally appropriate healing
programs was recommended by survivors and other respondents during formal and informal
conversations. A Métis respondent recommended that more funding be recommitted to the Aboriginal
Healing Foundation and other culturally appropriate healing initiatives. Another survivor recommended
making funding more accessible for survivors to attend traditional healers and teachers. This includes
supporting healing programs on and off-reserve, as well as offering support to survivors and their
descendants who may need to travel some distance to participate in these programs. Another 4%
responded that the first step involved empowering First Nations people and building local capacities.
Future Prospects
In discussions regarding truth and reconciliation, reconciliation is sometimes described as an end rather
than a means; it is seen as a goal rather than a process. This raises the issue, then, on how would one
know when reconciliation has been achieved? This research has thus far sought to analyze the
processes of reconciliation. But, if conceived of as an end, what does this ―final product‖ of
24
Joseph Maud and Frank Abraham, interviews by Nicki Ferland, The Forks, Winnipeg, July 19, 2010. Joseph spoke
of the importance of education for every Canadian child regarding Aboriginal history and cultures with the option to
study an Aboriginal language and Frank expressed the need to educate Indigenous children specifically concerning
Anishinaabe identity.
reconciliation look like? When asked to describe how they would know that reconciliation has been
achieved, 20% said when the survivors and their descendents live healthy lifestyles, including the 6%
who specifically mentioned when the intergenerational impacts are halted (half of these responses were
given by survivors). One participant answered that reconciliation was ―families of survivors learning
how to be family again and reclaiming our culture, specifically our language and traditions.‖ A survivor
remarked that reconciliation would be achieved when ―all survivors are not shouldering the pain and
suffering they have been through.‖

Seventeen percent responded when tolerance,

acceptance and celebration of differences exists
between the parties. The Commission may
expedite this goal by including links to or
information about distinct Aboriginal cultures on “We must continue to walk this
the TRC website in hopes of fostering path. We must believe that
understanding of and engagement with these Aboriginals and non-
cultures’ beliefs, norms and values. The national Aboriginals have gifts to share
event was a perfect opportunity for the general with each other.”
public to learn about not only residential school
issues, but about Aboriginal cultural mores. Piet
Meiring, a member of the South African Truth
and Reconciliation Commission, applauded TRC
Canada for its national event. He expressed his
jealousy that the South African TRC did not have
a celebration of tears and joy to commemorate
their statement gathering and reconciliation
efforts. Moreover, the continued validity and
sophistication of Aboriginal understandings can
have a positive impact on Canadian perspectives
of reconciliation, justice, education and
environmentalism, to name a few. A non-Aboriginal Canadian proposed inviting the First Nations
teachings and ways of healing to regain their rightful place in our country’s history. Giving all youth
and persons the opportunity to participate in other cultures can increase acceptance, tolerance and
celebration of each others differences and foster reconciliation and relationship-building for the future.
As one respondent answered, ―We must continue to walk this path. We must believe that Aboriginals
and non-Aboriginals have gifts to share with each other.‖ 21

Reconciliation would be
achieved “when each and every
child has equal opportunity and
access to optimal holistic
health.”
22
Fifteen percent answered that reconciliation would be achieved when a sense of community, peace and
trust exists between the peoples of Canada. Supporting unity on a community and national level is
thusly a chief task. One survivor highlighted that divide between Aboriginal persons and groups in his
own community, whether the conflict was between different language groups or between Christian and
traditionalist groups. Supporting community building initiatives above and beyond the community and
national events can help build the unity necessary to move forward together along the path of
reconciliation. Community building on a national scale is more difficult but vitally important to the
possibility of societal reconciliation. The suggestion above can also help build unity on a national level
by giving Canadian youth and future generations a stake in the maintenance and retention of Aboriginal
cultures.
Eleven percent stated that reconciliation is an ongoing, lengthy process that would take many
generations to complete. The enormous task before us is exemplified by the participant who responded
that reconciliation will be achieved ―when we do not have such oppressive systems always controlling
our people. When each and every child has equal opportunity and access to optimal holistic health.‖
Ultimately, a needs-based approach may help further reconciliation along. After all, all children—
Aboriginal or other—should have equal access to all services offered in Canada and to every
opportunity. That is reconciliation.
 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

 Reconciliation in the Canadian context is a healing process for individuals, communities and
society via truth-sharing and witnessing. This process may include perpetrators making
amends, survivors engaging in forgiveness and anyone impacted coming to terms with the
past and letting go of their pain in order to move forward. It involves all parties coming
together and uniting to establish/return to a positive relationship between all peoples for
future generations.

 The reconciliation journey generally begins at a personal level, then healed individuals help
generate a healthy community. Once individual and community reconciliation have been
achieved, societal reconciliation can follow. Personal or individual reconciliation was found
to be the most promising of the three levels and national reconciliation the least possible.

 The greatest challenge facing the possibility of reconciliation is the federal government, in
one respect or another. Ignorance, prejudice, racism and ongoing oppression are other
challenges. Another major challenge is the unwillingness or inability to engage in the spirit of
reconciliation, resulting from indifference, denial, anger or fear. The broad, time-consuming
nature of reconciliation is another challenge particularly in light of the Commission’s
relatively narrow mandate.

 The main role of the TRC is education and awareness-raising. Other functions include
supporting survivors and others, engaging Canadians in dialogue about residential schools
and reconciliation, fostering opportunities for encounter and facilitating occasions for healing.

 The role of truth-telling is to expose what happened so that it never happens again and to
acknowledge and understand the moral wrongs of the residential school system and its
legacy. Truth is integral to the healing process and will ultimately form the foundation of
upon which a new relationship is built.

24
  While they were named as a step taken towards reconciliation, the apologies did not
contribute a great deal to reconciliation. Aboriginal respondents were more likely to state that
the apologies contributed nothing and non-Aboriginal participants were more likely to state
that the apologies contributed a lot. Other steps include creating space for survivors to share
their experiences as well as the community events and the first national event. Recommended
steps include working towards a new relationship, involving more Elders in the process,
creating encounter mechanisms for survivors and perpetrators to meet, creating more funding
and opportunities for healing and, finally, empowering Aboriginal peoples.

 We would know that reconciliation has been achieved because survivors and their
descendents would live happy, healthy lives; Canadians would celebrate each others’
differences and a sense of community would exist. However, it is likely that reconciliation
will not be achieved for a generation of more due to the enormity of the task before us.

For more information, please see the accompanying video summary of the recorded interviews.

25

“[The government] decided to
take the Native children and
put them in … “civilized
schools.” And what we
encountered in “civilized
schools” was cruelty, torment
and abuse... And I believe that
that wasn’t civilized.”
 Delaney Sharpe
26
APPENDIX I
Background: A Brief History of Residential Schools
Aboriginal people living in Canada share a similar history; this helps place the social and mental health
issues affecting communities into context. Specific conditions such as ―depression, alcoholism, anxiety,
suicide ideation, and anger management problems are merely symptoms of a larger malaise.‖ The
residential school process was an attempt to change all aspects of Aboriginal culture, both within the
individual and within communities and groups. The ―larger malaise‖ alluded to above is the result of a
physical, mental, emotional and spiritual disconnection from survivors’ ―language, culture and their
communities and also, but most painfully, from their own sense of identity as being Indian.‖26 The
school environment allowed an attack on different dimensions of Aboriginal identity; through
education, perceptions of history, religious values, parenting, gender relations and cultural practices
were altered, disintegrated and re-shaped. While attempting to re-engineer the self and cultural
perceptions of their Aboriginal students, the school operators ensured that mistrust, shame, doubt, guilt,
and a sense of inferiority followed the students from childhood into adolescence and adulthood. The
legacy of residential schools, the impacts still visible in Aboriginal communities, has informed many of
the myths and stereotypes surrounding Canada’s Indigenous population, contributing to the state and
society-sanctioned structural discrimination that they continue to confront today. What follows is a
brief background on residential school and their legal resolution, which may help to contextualize the
research findings.
Prior to the 1840’s, church-run missionary schools operated throughout Canada with little participation
from the government. By 1842, the Bagot Commission began constructing an aggressive assimilation
policy that would take the shape of ―civilizing‖ education for Indigenous children.27 The Gradual
Civilization Act of 1857 included provisions to forcibly transfer these children to industrial schools,
which were essentially labour camps designed to make the students fit for little more than farming and
the performance of menial tasks like sewing. In 1892, the federal government and the Christian
churches officially became partners in the operation of residential schools, often located far from the
students’ homes and the influences of their parents and cultures.
25
Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson, ―The Residential School Experience: Syndrome or Historic Trauma,‖ Pimatisiwin: A
Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health 4, no. 1 (2006): 14.
26
Deborah Chansonneuve, Reclaiming Connections: Understanding Residential School Trauma among Aboriginal
People (Ottawa, Ontario: Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2005), 44-5.
27
John S. Milloy, A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to 1986
(Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1999), 13.
In 1907, P.H. Bryce, the Medical Inspector for the Department of Indian Affairs (DIA), filed a report
on the medical conditions in the schools that listed the mortality for First Nations youth at fifty percent.
Most died within a year of entering western residential schools. Tuberculosis and disease spread
effortlessly through the overcrowded schools and as a result of the sub-standard living conditions. Also,
the tactics used by the priests and nuns—some insufficiently educated themselves to be educators to
others—who ran the schools were frequently spiritually, emotionally and physically abusive. Persistent
abuse was another factor in the high mortality rates of the children. Throughout their existence, the
mortality rates in the schools ―matched or exceeded the death rates in Nazi concentration camps during
the Second World War.‖28
In 1920, the Indian Act was amended to
include the provision that ―[e]very
Indian child between the ages of seven
and fifteen years who is physically able
shall attend such day, industrial or “At five years old, the
boarding schools as may be designated Indianness was taken away
by the Superintendent General for the from me.”
full periods during which such school is  Joseph Maud
open each year‖29 It was at this time that
Duncan Campbell Scott, Superintendant
for the Department of Indian Affairs,
made his infamous statement, ―I want to
get rid of the Indian problem…Our
Photo Copyright of Library and Archives Canada PA-123707 objective is to continue until there is not a
single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian
question.‖30

At its peak, in 1931, the residential school system had 80 schools in operation, operated mostly by the
Roman Catholic church (upwards of 70%). At that time, 75% (17,000) of Aboriginal persons between
the ages of seven and 16 were wards of these various residential schools. Only in in 1969 did the
government secularize Aboriginal education by officially severing their partnership with the church. 31
28
Italics in original. Adam Jones, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (New York: Routledge, 2006), 76.
29
Indian Act of Canada, amended 1920. Part 1, Paragraph 10(1).
30
Duncan Campbell Scott quoted in Leslie Spillet, ―I Want to Get Rid of the White Problem,‖ Canadian Dimension
43, no.1 (2009): 1.
31
Milloy, 234 . 27
 In 1946, Aboriginal students began to transfer
to Canadian public schools with non-
Aboriginal students; however, by1960, when
Aboriginal peoples were granted suffrage,
there were still 60 residential schools
operating throughout Canada. The
government was realizing that their plan to
―get rid of the Indian problem‖ had failed.
During this period, when residential schools
had begun closing, Aboriginal children were
being removed en masse from their homes
and families, primarily for reasons of poverty,
to be adopted out to non-Aboriginal families
both domestically and internationally. This
“[People say] they tried to transgression became known as the ―sixties
take the Indian out of the scoop.‖32 Photo Copyright of Library and Archives Canada PA-134110
bush to assimilate them. I
believe they took the The last federally-run residential school, located in Saskatchewan, was not closed until 1996. However,
Anishinaabe out of the bush the residential school legacy did not stop there. From inception to end, over 130 schools were erected in
to make him an Indian.” Canada in every province but Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The violence
 Frank Abraham and sexual abuse experienced in residential schools became entrenched within communities of
survivors and continues to reverberate through the generations. The nature of these abuses had
physical, sexual, spiritual, psychological, emotional and cultural consequences.33 Throughout the
residential school era, there were 150,000 students who passed through their halls; an estimated 80-
90,000 are still alive. The legacy of abuse experienced by former students can be recognized in both
survivors and the subsequent generations because ―traumatic effects tend to ripple outward from
victims to touch all those who surround them, including children and grandchildren.‖34

32
William Julius Mussell, ―Decolonizing Education: A Building Block for Reconciliation,‖ in From Truth to Recon-
ciliation: Transforming the Legacy of Residential Schools, ed. Marlene Brant Castellano, Linda Archibald and Mike
DeGagné (Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2008), 325.
33
Roland Chrisjohn, Sherri Young and Michael Maraun, The Circle Game: Shadows and Substance in the Indian
Residential School Experience in Canada (Penticton: Theytus Books, 2006), 49-51.
34
Madeleine Dion Stout and Gregory Kipling, Aboriginal People, Resilience, and the Residential School Legacy
(Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2003), 51.
28
 Persons who attend these schools continue to struggle with their identity after years of being
taught to hate themselves and their culture. The residential schools led to a disruption in the
transference of parenting skills from one generation to the next. Without these skills, many
survivors had had difficulty in raising their own children. In residential schools, they learned that
adults often exert power and control through abuse. The lessons learned in childhood are often
repeated in adulthood with the result that many survivors of the residential school system often
inflict abuse on their own children. These children in turn use the same tools on their children. 35

Joseph Gone acknowledges that ―[w]e know that experiences of such violence are clearly correlated
with posttraumatic reactions including social and psychological disruptions and breakdowns.‖36 The
Indian Residential School Survivor Society contrasted Indigenous quality of life and standards of living
with the non-Indigenous society and concluded that ―First Nation communities experience higher rates
of violence: physical, domestic abuse (3x higher than mainstream society); sexual abuse: rape, incest,
etc. (4-6x higher); lack of family and community cohesion; suicide (6x higher); addictions: drugs,
alcohol, food; health problems: diabetes (3x higher), heart disease, obesity; poverty; unemployment; “What if I actually lost my
illiteracy; high school dropout (63% do not graduate); despair; hopelessness; and more.‖37 The violence children? What if somebody
has other harrowing repercussions: ―[o]f the first 29 men who publicly disclosed sexual abuse in came and took them from me?
Canadian residential schools, 22 committed suicide.‖38 What if they ran away from
that residential school and I
In the late 1980’s, the churches implicated in the operation of the schools began issuing apologies; the was trying to hide them to keep
United Church of Canada in 1986 and again in 1998, the Roman Catholic and Oblate Churches in them under my loving care and
1991, Anglican in 1993, and Presbyterian in 1994 as well as a private statement of sorrow and they got taken from me again?
sympathy from the Roman Catholic Pope in 2009. The Statement of Reconciliation was presented by The trauma of that is
the federal government to Aboriginal peoples in 1998 and included a promise of funding for Aboriginal magnificent.”
healing initiatives. A series of class action lawsuits and a Supreme Court decision laid the groundwork  Chad Cornell
for negotiations towards the Agreement in Principle in 2005. Signatories to this agreement were the
federal government, the plaintiffs of a number of class action lawsuits, the Assembly of First Nations
and Inuit Representatives, and the Anglican, Presbyterian, United and Roman Catholic churches of
Canada. Arbitrated by former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci, this Agreement was the basis for
the 2006 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

35
Cold Lake First Nations, ―History of Indian Residential Schools,‖ http://clfns.com/images/people/documents/
history_of_indian_residential_schools.pdf (accessed July 25, 2010), 11.
36
Joseph Gone quoted in Andrea Smith, ―Soul Wounds: The Legacy of Native American Schools,‖ Amnesty Interna-
tional USA (2003), http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/soulwound.html (accessed June 18, 2010).
37
Indian Residential School Survivors Society, ―History,‖ http://www.irsss.ca/history html (accessed May 5, 2010).
38
Quoted in Smith. 29
 The Settlement, a $2 billion agreement, provided for the Common Experience Payment, a $10,000
lump sum payment to any former student who resided at a residential school and an additional $3,000
for every further year; the Independent Assessment Process, additional compensation for cases of sex-
ual or serious physical or other abuses causing psychological damage; a further $125 million to renew
the mandate of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation; $20 million for commemoration initiatives, such
as events and memorials to inform the public about residential schools and their consequences; and
finally, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, $60 million was allocated for the Commission to
complete its five year mandate.39

“We are missing something.

And what is missing has
everything to do with the
situation that we see around us
to this very day. It is something
that will explain why we see a
divide between Aboriginal
peoples and the rest of Canada.
It will explain why we see such
disparity in so many of our
communities. What is missing
is something that Canadians
need to know. What is missing
from the IRS history is the very
heart of that history:
the truth of it.”
 Justice Murray Sinclair
Opening remarks, June 16, 2010

39
Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (8 May 2006), http://www residentialschoolsettlement.ca/
Settlement.pdf (accessed March 25, 2010), 6-7.
30
 APPENDIX II
Residential Schools Attended by Respondents

British Columbia Alberta Yukon Cross Lake Assiniboia, Winnipeg (x2) St. Mary's (x5)
Lejac; Fraser Lake Blue Quill, St. Paul Aklavik (x2) Guy Hill (x3) Brandon Fort Frances (x2)
Saskatchewan St. Bernard, Grouard Manitoba Pine Creek Portage La Prarie Pelican Lake
Gordon, Punnichy Quebec Churchil McKay (x4) Ontario St. Joseph's
Prince Albert (x2) St. Phillip's Cranberry Portage Sandy Bay Cecilia Jeffrey St. Anne's
McIntosh (x3)

32
 APPENDIX III
Respondents’ Residences*

* In order to demonstrate the geographical range of our research, respondents’ reserves and others’ places of residence have been inputted
onto the map of Canada. Respondents’ reserves are in blue and other respondents’ residences are in red (the markers represent more than
one participant’s residence; Winnipeg, for instance, was cited numerous times). However, while many respondents listed their reserves in
response to the question, ―where are you from,‖ 54.4% noted that they lived off-reserve.

33
 Cover Artwork by
Photos courtesy of Bobbie Whiteman Travis C. Harper/Wapiwakan (Whitecloud)
Photo editing provided by Dan Monkman ―Creator of All‖
Copyright of Nicki Ferland, Bobbie Whiteman & Janna Barkman, 2010 2009