Canadian Indian residential school system

Although education in Canada was made the jurisdiction of the provincial governments by the British North America Act, Indigenous peoples and their treaties were under the jurisdiction of the federal government.[22] Residential schools were funded under the Indian Act by what was then the federal Department of the Interior. Adopted in 1876 as An Act to amend and consolidate the laws respecting Indians, it consolidated all previous laws placing Indigenous communities, land and finances under federal control. As explained by the TRC, the Act "made Indians wards of the state, unable to vote in provincial or federal elections or enter the professions if they did not surrender their status, and severely limited their freedom to participate in spiritual and cultural practices".[21]^:110

Front cover of Statistics Respecting Indian Schools, 1898, including Egerton Ryerson's letter "Report by Dr Ryerson on Industrial Schools"

The by Governor General Charles Bagot, entitled Report on the affairs of the Indians in Canada.[15]^:12–17[23] Referred to as the Bagot Report, it is seen as the foundational document for the federal residential school system.[24] It was supported by James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin, who had been impressed by industrial schools in the West Indies, and Egerton Ryerson, who was then the Chief Superintendent of Education in Upper Canada.[15]^:15

On May 26, 1847, Ryerson wrote a letter for George Vardon, Assistant Superintendent of Indian Affairs, asserting that "the North American Indian cannot be civilized or preserved in a state of civilization (including habits of industry and sobriety) except in connection with, if not by the influence of, not only religious instruction and sentiment but of religious feelings".[25]^:3 He expressly recommended that Indigenous students be educated in a separate, denominational, English-only system with a focus on industrial training.[11][14][24] This letter was published as an appendix to a larger report entitled Statistics Respecting Indian Schools.[25]

The Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869 formed the foundations for this system prior to Confederation. These acts assumed the inherent superiority of French and British ways, and the need for Indigenous peoples to become French or English speakers, Christians, and farmers. At the time, many Indigenous leaders argued to have these acts overturned.[26] The Gradual Civilization Act awarded 50 acres (200,000 m²) of land to any Indigenous male deemed "sufficiently advanced in the elementary branches of education" and would automatically "enfranchise" him, removing any tribal affiliation or treaty rights.[15]^:18[27] With this legislation, and through the creation of residential schools, the government believed Indigenous peoples could eventually become assimilated into the general population. For graduates to receive individual allotments of farmland would require changes in the communal reserve system, something fiercely opposed by First Nations governments.[15]^:18–19

In January 1879, Sir John A. Macdonald, Prime Minister of what was now post-Confederation Canada, commissioned politician Nicholas Flood Davin to write a report regarding the industrial boarding-school system in the United States.[21]^:154[28] Now known as the Davin Report, the Report on Industrial Schools for Indians and Half-Breeds was submitted to Ottawa in March 14, 1879, and made the case for a cooperative approach between the Canadian government and the church to implement the "aggressive assimilation" pursued by President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant.[29][28]^:1 Davin's report relied heavily on findings he acquired through consultations with government officials and representatives of the Five Civilized Tribes in Washington, DC, and church officials in Winnipeg, Manitoba. He visited only one industrial day school, in Minnesota, before submitting his findings.[21]^:154–158 In his report Davin concluded that the best way to civilize Indigenous peoples was to start with children in a residential setting, away from their families, so that they could be "kept constantly within the circle of civilized conditions".[21]^:157[28]^:12

Davin's findings were supported by Vital-Justin Grandin, who felt that while the likelihood of civilizing adults was low, there was hope when it came to Indigenous children. He explained in a letter to Public Works Minister Hector-Louis Langevin that the best course of action would be to make children "lead a life different from their parents and cause them to forget the customs, habits & language of their ancestors".[21]^:159 In 1883 Parliament approved $43,000 for three industrial schools and the first, Battleford Industrial School, opened on December 1 of that year. By 1900 there were 61 schools in operation.[21]^:161

The government began purchasing church-run boarding schools in the 1920s. During this period capital costs associated with the schools were assumed by the government, leaving administrative and instructional duties to church officials. The hope was that minimizing facility expenditures would allow church administrators to provide higher quality instruction and support to the students in their care. Although the government was willing to, and did, purchase schools from the churches, many were acquired for free given that the rampant disrepair present in the buildings resulted in their having no economic value. Schools continued to be maintained by churches in instances where they failed to reach an agreement with government officials with the understanding that the government would provide support for capital costs. The understanding ultimately proved complicated due to the lack of written agreements outlining the extent and nature of that support or the approvals required to undertake expensive renovations and repairs.[21]^:240

By the 1930s it was recognized by government officials that the residential school system was financially unsustainable and failing to meet the intended goal of training and assimilating Indigenous children into European-Canadian society. Robert Hoey, superintendent of welfare and training at Indian Affairs, opposed the expansion of new schools, noting in 1936 that "to build educational institutions, particularly residential schools, while the money at our disposal is insufficient to keep the schools already erected in a proper state of repair, is, to me, very unsound and a practice difficult to justify".[30]^:3 He proposed the expansion of day schools, an approach to educating Indigenous children that he would continue to pursue after being promoted to director of the welfare and training branch in 1945. The proposal was resisted by the United Church, the Anglican Church, and the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, who believed that the solution to the system's failure was not restructuring but intensification.[30]^:3–5

Between 1945 and 1955, the number of First Nations students in day schools run by Indian Affairs expanded from 9,532 to 17,947. This growth in student population was accompanied by an amendment to the Indian Act in 1951 that allowed federal officials to establish agreements with provincial and territorial governments and school boards regarding the education of Indigenous students in the public school system. These changes were indicative of the government's shift in policy from assimilation-driven education at residential schools to the integration of Indigenous students into public schools.[4]^:71 It was believed that Indigenous children would receive a better education as a result of their transition into the public school system.[31]

Despite the shift in policy from educational assimilation to integration, the removal of Indigenous children from their families by state officials continued through much of the 1960s and 70s.[30]^:147 The removals were the result of the 1951 addition of section 88 to the Indian Act, which allowed for the application of provincial laws to Indigenous peoples living on reserves in instances where federal laws were not in place. The change included the monitoring of child welfare.[32][33] With no requirement for specialized training regarding the traditions or lifestyles of the communities they entered, provincial officials assessed the welfare of Indigenous children based on Euro-Canadian values that, for example, deemed traditional diets of game, fish and berries insufficient and grounds for taking children into custody.[31] This period resulted in the widespread removal of Indigenous children from their traditional communities, first termed the Sixties Scoop by Patrick Johnston, the author of the 1983 report Native Children and the Child Welfare System. Often taken without the consent of their parents or community elders, some children were placed in state-run child welfare facilities, increasingly operated in former residential schools, while others were fostered or placed up for adoption by predominantly non-Indigenous families throughout Canada and the United States. While the Indian and Northern Affairs estimates that 11,132 children were adopted between 1960 and 1990, the actual number may be as high as 20,000.[32][34]^:182

In 1969, after years of sharing power with churches, the DIA took sole control of the residential school system.[15][30]^:79–84 The last residential school operated by the Canadian government, Gordon Indian Residential School in Saskatchewan, was closed in 1996.[35] Residential schools operated in every Canadian province and territory with the exception of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.[7] It is estimated that the number of residential schools reached its peak in the early 1930s with 80 schools and more than 17,000 enrolled students. About 150,000 children are believed to have attended a residential school over the course of the system's existence.[4]^:2–3[36]

The parents and families of Indigenous children resisted the residential school system throughout its existence. Children were kept from schools and, in some cases, hidden from government officials tasked with rounding up children on reserves.[37] Parents regularly advocated for increased funding for schools, including the increase of centrally located day schools to improve access to their children, and made repeated requests for improvements to the quality of education, food, and clothing being provided at the schools. Demands for answers in regards to claims of abuse were often dismissed as a ploy by parents seeking to keep their children at home, with government and school officials positioned as those who knew best.[21]^:669–674

In 1894, amendments to the Indian Act made school attendance compulsory for Indigenous children between 7 and 16 years of age. The changes included a series of exemptions regarding school location, the health of the children and their prior completion of school examinations.[21]^:254–255 It was changed to children between 6 and 15 years of age in 1908.[21]^:261[38] The introduction of mandatory attendance was the result of pressure from missionary representatives. Reliant on student enrollment quotas to secure funding, they were struggling to attract new students due to increasingly poor school conditions.[13]^:128

Compulsory attendance ended in 1948, following the 1947 report of a special joint committee and subsequent amendment of the Indian Act.[39] Government officials were still able to influence student attendance. The introduction of the Family Allowance Act in 1945 stipulated that school-aged children had to be enrolled in school for families to qualify for the "baby bonus", further coercing Indigenous parents into having their children attend residential schools.[13]^:170[40]

Parents and family members regularly travelled to the schools, often camping outside to be closer to their children. The number of parents who made the trip prompted Indian Commissioner Hayter Reed to argue that industrial schools, like residential schools, be moved greater distances from reserves to make visiting more difficult.[21]^:601–604 He also objected to allowing children to return home during school breaks and holidays because he believed the trips interrupted the civilizing of school attendees.[42] As Reed explained in 1894, the problem with day schools was that students returned home each night where they were influenced by life on the reserve, whereas "in the boarding or industrial schools the pupils are removed for a long period from the leadings of this uncivilized life and receive constant care and attention".[21]^:199

Visitation, for those able to make the journey, was strictly controlled by school officials in a manner similar to the procedures enforced in the prison system. In some cases visitors were altogether denied access to their children, while in others families were required to meet in the presence of school officials and forced to communicate in English. For parents unable to speak the language, verbal communication with their children was impossible. The obstacles families faced to visit their children were further exacerbated by the pass system. Introduced by Reed without legislative authority to do so, the system restricted and closely monitored the movement of Indigenous peoples off reserves.[21]^:601–604 Launched in 1885 as a response to the North-West Rebellion, and later replaced by permits, the system was designed to prevent Indigenous people from leaving reserves without a pass issued by a local Indian agent.[43]

Residential school group photograph, Regina, Saskatchewan, 1908

Instruction provided to students was rooted in an institutional and European approach to education. It differed dramatically from child rearing in traditional knowledge systems that are generally based on 'look, listen, and learn' models. Unlike the corporal punishment and loss of privileges that characterized the residential school system, traditional approaches to education favour positive guidance toward desired behaviour through the use of game-based play, story-telling, and formal ritualized ceremonies.[13]^:15–21[44] While at school, many children had no contact with their families for up to 10 months at a time because of the distance between their home communities and schools, and in some cases had no contact for years. The impact of the disconnect from their families was furthered by students being discouraged or prohibited from speaking Indigenous languages, even among themselves and outside the classroom, so that English or French would be learned and their own languages forgotten. In some schools, they were subject to physical violence for speaking their own languages or for practicing non-Christian faiths.[36][45]

Most schools operated with the goal of providing students with the vocational training and social skills required to obtain employment and integrate into Canadian society after graduation. In actuality, these goals were poorly and inconsistently achieved. Many graduates were unable to land a job due to poor educational training. Returning home was equally challenging due to an unfamiliarity with their culture and, in some cases, an inability to communicate with family members using their traditional language. Instead of intellectual achievement and advancement, it was often physical appearance and dress, like that of middle class, urban teenagers, or the promotion of a Christian ethic, that was used as a sign of successful assimilation. There was no indication that school attendees achieved greater financial success than those who did not go to school. As the father of a pupil who attended Battleford Industrial School, in Saskatchewan, for five years explained: "he cannot read, speak or write English, nearly all his time having been devoted to herding and caring for cattle instead of learning a trade or being otherwise educated. Such employment he can get at home."[13]^{:164–172, 194–199}

The TRC concluded that it may be impossible to ever identify the number of deaths or missing children, in part because of the habit of burying students in unmarked graves.[53][54][55] The work is further complicated by a pattern of poor record keeping by school and government officials, who neglected to keep reliable numbers about the number of children who died or where they were buried.[6] While most schools had cemeteries on site, their location and extent remain difficult to determine as cemeteries that were originally marked were found to have been later razed, intentionally hidden or built over.[55][56]

The fourth volume of the TRC's final report, dedicated to missing children and unmarked burials, was developed after the original TRC members realized, in 2007, that the issue required its own working group. In 2009, the TRC requested $1.5 million in extra funding from the federal government to complete this work, but was denied.[6] The researchers concluded, after searching land near schools using satellite imagery and maps, that, "for the most part, the cemeteries that the Commission documented are abandoned, disused, and vulnerable to accidental disturbance".[57]^:1

Although encouragement to keep Indigenous languages alive was present in some schools, a key tactic used to assimilate Indigenous children into Canadian society was to suppress Indigenous languages and culture. Many students spoke the language of their families fluently when they first entered residential schools. Teachers responded by strictly prohibiting the use of these languages despite many students having little or no understanding of English or French.[18][71] The practice of traditional and spiritual activities including the Potlatch and Sun Dance were also banned.[72] Some survivors reported being strapped or forced to eat soap when they were caught speaking their own language. The inability to communicate was further affected by their families' inabilities to speak English or French. Upon leaving residential school some survivors felt ashamed for being Indigenous as they were made to view their traditional identities as ugly and dirty.[4]^{:4, 83–87}[73]

The stigma created by the residential school system regarding transmission of Indigenous culture by elders to younger generations has been linked to the over-representation of Indigenous languages on the list of endangered languages in Canada. The TRC noted that the majority of 90 Indigenous languages still in existence are "under serious threat of extinction".[4]^:202 With great-grandparents representing the only speakers of many Indigenous languages, it was concluded that a failure of governments and Indigenous communities to prioritize the teaching and preservation of traditional languages would ensure that, despite the closure of resident schools, the eradication of Indigenous culture desired by government officials and administrators would inevitably be fulfilled "through a process systemic neglect".[4]^:202 In addition to the forceful eradication of elements of Indigenous culture, the schools trained students in patriarchal dichotomies useful to state institutions, such as the domesticization of female students through imbuing ‘stay-at-home’ values and the militarization of male students through soldierlike regimentation.[74]  

On June 11, 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology, on behalf of the sitting Cabinet, in front of an audience of Indigenous delegates, and in an address that was broadcast nationally on the CBC, for the past governments' policies of assimilation.[81][82] The Prime Minister apologized not only for the known excesses of the residential school system, but for the creation of the system itself. Harper delivered the speech in the House of Commons; the procedural device of a Committee of the Whole was used, so that Indigenous leaders, who were not Members of Parliament, could be allowed to respond to the apology on the floor of the House.[83]

Harper's apology excluded Newfoundland and Labrador as it was argued that the government should not be held accountable for pre-Confederation actions. Residential schools in Newfoundland and Labrador were located in St. Anthony, Cartwright, North West River, Nain and Makkovik. These schools were run by the International Grenfell Association and the German Moravian Missionaries.[84] The government argued that because these schools were not created under the auspices of the Indian Act, they were not true residential schools. More than 1,000 survivors disagreed and filed a class action lawsuit against the government for compensation in 2007. By the time the suit was settled in 2016, almost a decade later, dozens of plaintiffs had died. It was expected that up to 900 former students would be compensated.[85]

On November 24, 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a formal apology to former Innu, Inuit and NunatuKavut school survivors and their families during a ceremony in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador.[86][87] He acknowledged that students experienced multiple forms of abuse linking their treatment to the colonial thinking that shaped the school system.[88] Trudeau's apology was received on behalf of residential school survivors by Toby Obed who framed the apology as a key part of the healing process that connected survivors from Newfoundland and Labrador with school attendees from across the country.[86] Members of the Innu Nation were less receptive, rejecting the apology ahead of the ceremony.[89] Grand Chief Gregory Rich noted in a released statement that he was "not satisfied that Canada understands yet what it has done to Innu and what it is still doing", indicating that members felt they deserved an apology for more than their experiences at residential schools.[86][89]

On June 22, 2015, Rachel Notley, Premier of Alberta, issued a formal apology as a ministerial statement in a bid to begin to address the wrongs done by the government to the Indigenous peoples of Alberta and the rest of Canada.[90] Notley's provincial government called on the federal government to hold an inquiry on the missing and murdered Indigenous women in Canada at the same time. They also stated their intent to build relationships with provincial leaders of Indigenous communities, and sought to amend the provincial curriculum to include the history of Indigenous culture.[91]

On June 18, 2015, Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger became the first politician to issue a formal apology for the government's role in the Sixties Scoop.[92] Class action lawsuits have been brought against the Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario governments for the harm caused to victims of the large-scale adoption scheme that saw thousands of Indigenous children forcibly removed from their parents in the 1960s.[93] Indigenous leaders responded by insisting that while apologies were welcomed, action – including a federal apology, reunification of families, compensation and counselling for victims – must accompany words for them to have real meaning.[94]

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne apologized on behalf of the provincial government for the harm done at residential schools at Legislative Assembly of Ontario on May 30, 2016.[95] Affirming Ontario's commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples she acknowledged the school system as "one of the most shameful chapters in Canadian history".[96] In a 105-minute ceremony, Wynne announced that the Ontario government would spend $250 million on education initiatives and renamed the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. It was further announced that the first week of November would be known as Treaties Recognition Week.[97][98]

On October 27, 2011, University of Manitoba president David Barnard apologized to the TRC for the institution's role in educating people who operated the residential school system. This is believed to be the first time a Canadian university has apologized for playing a role in residential schools.[99]

Students of St. Anne's Indian Residential School in Fort Albany, Ontario, c. 1945

In 2009, Chief Fontaine had a private meeting with Pope Benedict XVI to obtain an apology for abuses that occurred in the residential school system. Fontaine was accompanied at the meeting by a delegation of Indigenous peoples from Canada funded by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Following the meeting, the Vatican released an official expression of sorrow on the church's role in residential schools:

His Holiness [i.e. the Pope] recalled that since the earliest days of her presence in Canada, the Church, particularly through her missionary personnel, has closely accompanied the Indigenous peoples.

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 Peoples to continue to move forward with renewed hope.[100]

Fontaine later stated at a news conference that, at the meeting, he sensed the Pope's "pain and anguish" and that the acknowledgement was "important to [him] and that was what [he] was looking for".[101]

On May 29, 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked the current Pope Francis for a public apology to all survivors of the residential school system, rather than the expression of sorrow issued in 2009.[102][103][104] The request aligned with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call for "a formal apology issued by the Pope to the survivors of the residential school system for the spiritual, cultural, emotional, physical and sexual abuse of Canada's First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples".[105] Trudeau invited the Pope to issue the apology in Canada. Although no commitment for such an apology followed the meeting, he noted that the Pope pointed to a lifelong commitment of supporting marginalized people and an interest in working collaboratively with Trudeau and Canadian bishops to establish a way forward.[102]

In January 1998, the government made a "statement of reconciliation" – including an apology to those people who were sexually or physically abused while attending residential schools – and established the Aboriginal Healing Foundation (AHF). The foundation was provided with $350 million to fund community-based healing projects addressing the legacy of physical and sexual abuse.[108] In its 2005 budget, the Canadian government committed an additional $40 million to support the work of the AHF.[109] Federal funding for the foundation was cut in 2010 by the Stephen Harper government, leaving 134 national healing-related initiatives without an operating budget.[110] The AHF closed in 2014. Former AHF executive director Mike DeGagne has said that the loss of AHF support has created a gap in dealing with mental health crises such as suicides in the Attawapiskat First Nation.[111]

In June 2001, the government established Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada as an independent government department to manage the residential school file. In 2003, the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process was launched as part of a larger National Resolution Framework which included health supports, a commemoration component and a strategy for litigation.[112] As explained by the TRC, the ADR was designed as a "voluntary process for resolution of certain claims of sexual abuse, physical abuse, and forcible confinement, without having to go through the civil litigation process".[30]^:564 It was created by the Canadian government without consultation with Indigenous communities or former residential school students. The ADR system also made it the responsibility of the former students to prove that the abuse occurred and was intentional, resulting in former students finding the system difficult to navigate, re-traumatizing, and discriminatory. Many survivor advocacy groups and Indigenous political organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) worked to have the ADR system dissolved.[113] In 2004 the Assembly of First Nations released a report critical of the ADR underscoring, among other issues, the failure of survivors to automatically receive the full amount of compensation without subsequent ligation against the church and failure to compensate for lost family, language and culture.[30]^:565 The Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development released its own report in April 2005 finding the ADR to be "an excessively costly and inappropriately applied failure, for which the Minister and her officials are unable to raise a convincing defence".[30]^:566 Within a month of the report's release a Supreme Court of Canada decision granted school attendees the right to pursue class-action suits, which ultimately led to a government review of the compensation process.[30]^:566

On November 23, 2005, the Canadian government announced a $1.9-billion compensation package to benefit tens of thousands of former students. National Chief of the AFN, Phil Fontaine, said the package was meant to cover "decades in time, innumerable events and countless injuries to First Nations individuals and communities".[114] Justice Minister Irwin Cotler applauded the compensation decision noting that the placement of children in the residential school system was "the single most harmful, disgraceful and racist act in our history".[114] At an Ottawa news conference, Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said: "We have made good on our shared resolve to deliver what I firmly believe will be a fair and lasting resolution of the Indian school legacy."[114]

The compensation package led to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA), announced on May 8, 2006, and implemented in September 2007.[115] At the time, there were about 86,000 living victims. The IRSSA included funding for the AHF, for commemoration, for health support, and for a Truth and Reconciliation program, as well as an individual Common Experience Payment (CEP).[73] Any person who could be verified as having resided at a federally run Indian residential school in Canada was entitled to a CEP.[116] The amount of compensation was based on the number of years a particular former student 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.[117][118]^:44

The IRSSA also included the Independent Assessment Process (IAP), a case-by-case, out-of-court resolution process designed to provide compensation for sexual, physical and emotional abuse. The IAP process was built on the ADR program and all IAP claims from former students are examined by an adjudicator. The IAP became available to all former students of residential schools on September 19, 2007. Former students who experienced abuse and wished to pursue compensation had to apply by themselves or through a lawyer of their choice to receive consideration.[119] The deadline to apply for the IAP was September 19, 2012. This gave former students of residential schools four years from the implementation date of the IRSSA to apply for the IAP. Claims involving physical and sexual abuse were compensated up to $275,000.[120] By the end of January 2017, the IAP had resolved 36,538 claims and paid $3.1 billion in compensation.[121]

The IRSSA also proposed an advance payment for former students alive and who were 65 years old and over as of May 30, 2005. The deadline for reception of the advance payment form by IRSRC was December 31, 2006. Following a legal process, including an examination of the IRSSA by the courts of the provinces and territories of Canada, an "opt-out" period occurred. During this time, the former students of residential schools could reject the agreement if they did not agree with its dispositions. This opt-out period ended on August 20, 2007, with about 350 former students opting out. The IRSSA was the largest class action settlement in Canadian history. By December 2012, a total of $1.62 billion was paid to 78,750 former students, 98 per cent of the 80,000 who were eligible.[122] In 2014, the IRSSA funds left over from CEPs were offered for educational credits for survivors and their families.[123]

Justice Murray Sinclair at the 2015 Shingwauk Gathering and Conference at Algoma University

In 2008, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was established to travel across Canada collecting the testimonies of people affected by the residential school system. About 7,000 Indigenous people told their stories.[124] The TRC concluded in 2015 with the publication of a six volume, 4,000-plus-page report detailing the testimonies of survivors and historical documents from the time. It focused on the importance of moving "from apology to action"[4]^:262 to achieve true reconciliation and resulted in the establishment of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.[125][126]

The executive summary of the TRC concluded that the assimilation amounted to cultural genocide.[4]^:1 The ambiguity of the phrasing allowed for the interpretation that physical and biological genocide also occurred. The TRC was not authorized to conclude that physical and biological genocide occurred, as such a finding would imply a legal responsibility of the Canadian government that would be difficult to prove. As a result, the debate about whether the Canadian government also committed physical and biological genocide against Indigenous populations remains open.[127][128]

Among the 94 Calls to Action that accompanied the conclusion of the TRC were recommendations to ensure that all Canadians are educated and made aware of the residential school system.[34]^:175–176 Justice Murray Sinclair explained that the recommendations were not aimed solely at prompting government action, but instead a collective move toward reconciliation in which all Canadians have a role to play: "Many of our elements, many of our recommendations and many of the Calls to Action are actually aimed at Canadian society."[129]

Preservation of documentation of the legacy of residential schools was also highlighted as part of the TRC's Calls to Action. Community groups and other stakeholders have variously argued for documenting or destroying evidence and testimony of residential school abuses.[130][131][132] On April 4, 2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that documents pertaining to IAP settlements will be destroyed in 15 years if individual claimants do not request to have their documents archived. This decision was fought by the TRC as well as the federal government, but argued for by religious representatives.[133]

In March 2017, Lynn Beyak, a Conservative member of the Senate Standing Committee of Aboriginal Peoples, voiced disapproval of the final TRC report, saying that it had omitted an "abundance of good" that was present in the schools.[134][135] Although Beyak's right to free speech was defended by some Conservative senators, her comments were widely criticized by members of the opposition, among them Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Carolyn Bennett, and leader of the New Democratic Party, Tom Mulcair.[136] The Anglican Church also raised concerns stating in a release co-signed by bishops Fred Hiltz and Mark MacDonald: "There was nothing good about children going missing and no report being filed. There was nothing good about burying children in unmarked graves far from their ancestral homes."[137][138] In response, the Conservative Party leadership removed Beyak from the Senate committee underscoring that her comments did not align with the views of the party.[136]

The four churches of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement – the United, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian churches[73] – agreed to participate in the reconciliation process between Indigenous and settler Canadians. They have been involved in funding various projects and services that assist former residential school students and their families in healing from the trauma caused by the schools. The Anglican Church of Canada set up the Anglican Healing Fund in the 1990s to respond to the ongoing need for healing related to residential schools.[139] In the 2000s the United Church established the Justice and Reconciliation Fund to support healing initiatives and the Presbyterian Church has established a Healing & Reconciliation Program.[140][141]

The churches have also engaged in reconciliation initiatives such as the Returning to Spirit: Residential School Healing and Reconciliation Program, a workshop that aims to unite Indigenous and non-Indigenous people through discussing the legacy of residential schools and fostering an environment for them to communicate and develop mutual understanding.[4] In 2014, the federal government ceased to contribute funds to Indigenous health organizations such as the AHF and the National Aboriginal Health Organization. Since then, more pressure has been placed on churches to sustain their active participation in these healing efforts.[4]

For many communities the existence of buildings that formerly housed residential schools is a traumatic reminder of the system's legacy, and there has been much discussion about demolition, heritage status and how the possibility of incorporating sites into the healing process.[130][131][132] In July 2016, it was announced that the building of the former Mohawk Institute Residential School would be converted into an educational centre with exhibits on the legacy of residential schools. Ontario's Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, David Zimmer, noted: "Its presence will always be a reminder of colonization and the racism of the residential school system; one of the darkest chapters of Canadian history."[142]

Reconciliation efforts have also been undertaken by several Canadian universities. In 2015 Lakehead University and the University of Winnipeg introduced a mandatory course requirement for all undergraduate students focused on Indigenous culture and history.[143] The same year the University of Saskatchewan hosted a two-day national forum at which Canadian university administrators, scholars and members of Indigenous communities discussed how Canadian universities can and should respond to the TRC's Calls to Action.[144][145]

Raising of the Reconciliation Pole on UBC Vancouver campus

On April 1, 2017, a 17-metre (56 ft) pole, titled Reconciliation Pole, was raised on the grounds of the University of British Columbia (UBC) Vancouver campus, which sits on the unceded territory of the Musqueam people. Carved by Haida master carver and hereditary chief, 7idansuu (Edenshaw), James Hart, the pole tells the story of the residential school system prior to, during and after its operation. It features thousands of copper nails, used to represent the children who died in Canadian residential schools, and depictions of residential school survivors carved by artists from multiple Indigenous communities. Included among them are Canadian Inuk director Zacharias Kunuk, Maliseet artist Shane Perley-Dutcher, and Muqueam Coast Salish artist Susan Point.[146][147]

In October 2016, Canadian singer-songwriter Gord Downie released Secret Path, a concept album about Chanie Wenjack's escape and death. It was accompanied by a graphic novel and animated film, aired on CBC Television. All proceeds go to the University of Manitoba's Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. Following his death in October 2017, Downie's brother Mike said he was aware of 40,000 teachers who had used the material in their classrooms, and hoped to continue this.[148] In December 2017, Downie was posthumously named Canadian Newsmaker of the Year by the Canadian Press, in part because of his work with reconciliation efforts for survivors of residential schools.[149]