Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood before the House of Commons this week to offer a formal apology to Canada’s natives for “a sad chapter in our history” when past government policies took native children from their families and reassigned them to government and church-run residential schools.
For many, the experience was a nightmare. So Harper didn’t mince words in specifically apologizing for the sexual and physical abuse that took place, the underlying effort to wipe out the Indian culture through assimilation and the ongoing generational impact of those actions. He acknowledged it all by saying, the “government now recognizes that the consequences of (this) policy were profoundly negative.”
There’s no doubt that these words and the events of June 11, 2008, will become significant entries on the pages of Canada’s history books. But the jury’s still out as to whether they will make any difference in the lives of natives.
After all, we’ve been here before. In 1998, the then-Liberal government issued a formal Statement of Reconciliation that expressed “profound regret for past (government) actions” and said “we are deeply sorry” for the trauma that natives experienced at the schools.
At that time, Chief Phil Fontaine proclaimed, “It took (the government) some courage . . . to take this historic step, to break with the past, and to apologize for the historic wrongs and injustices committed against our people. It is therefore a great honour for me, on behalf of the First Nations, to accept the apology of the government and people of Canada.”
So it’s difficult to put our trust in Fontaine’s current words as he accepted Harper’s apology. Based on his history, his acceptance certainly can’t be interpreted as a sign he is willing to forgive, forget and move on.
Australia’s been here, too. In 1999, the Australian federal Parliament passed a resolution expressing “deep and sincere regret” for injustices against its indigenous people as a result of past government policies. In the late 1990s, three of Australia’s six states (Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales) went ahead with their own formal apologies.
But all of that wasn’t enough to bring about healing and positive change. In February 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd offered an official federal apology to Australia’s Aborigines for policies that removed children from their homes in the name of child protection and assimilation.
It’s a bit early to analyze the impact of Rudd’s recent apology. But it’s clear that Australia faces similar issues to Canada in terms of righting historic wrongs towards its indigenous population and that it’s further ahead of Canada in the reconciliation and restoration process.
Yet, despite more than a decade of government programs and strategies to better the standard of living for aborigines, a 2007 report (Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2007) reveals huge gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians in practical issues like health, education and opportunity.
Australia’s indigenous people still have a life expectancy that is 17 years lower than the non-indigenous and infant mortality rates are two to three times higher. About 36 per cent of Aborigines over the age of 15 reported a disability or long-term health condition in 2002 (a rate that is twice as high as non-indigenous people).
In terms of social issues, rates of alcohol abuse and suicide remain significantly higher for indigenous people. In 2005-06, indigenous children were nearly four times as likely to be the subject of abuse or neglect. Even worse, new policies and the new atmosphere of “white guilt” have made government workers reluctant to remove children from abusive situations. It’s not progress when common sense is tossed aside in the name of political correctness.
The indigenous population is significantly overrepresented in the criminal justice system as both victims and offenders.
In 2006, indigenous students were only half as likely to complete a Grade 12 education, a factor which has a significant impact on their ability to assimilate and attain employment.
Consequently, although unemployment rates for the indigenous have dropped significantly (mostly because of participation in government programs), the rate is still three times higher than for non-indigenous people. In 2004-05, over half of indigenous people (52 per cent) still received most of their individual income from government pensions and allowances.
On paper, all the Australian apologies seemed to promise a new beginning. But the fact remains that there has been very little improvement in the lives of aborigines or their communities.
I don’t want to rain on Canada’s parade, but this apology may not be the best response that we can make if we really want to create positive change.
The apology is significant as symbolism and hopefully it represents the start of reconciliation. It is a mark of civility that we can be proud of, but that’s it.
The Australian situation demonstrates that words aren’t going to be the big fix that is needed to help native people, so I hate to see people putting all their expectations on the current apology.
- Defender to defendant - Saturday January 29, 2011 at 9:16 am
- Grief or glamour? - Saturday January 22, 2011 at 8:24 am
- Forget blame game - Saturday January 15, 2011 at 7:48 am
