to be struck between the claim of the wronged group and the capacity of the group at fault to pay the claim. In capitalist societies, pastwrongs are compensated in two currencies: the language of apology and hard cash. 14 It is well known that neither currency is adequate. When a person has been scarred for life by sexual or racial abuse in an aboriginal school, what apology, what cash settlement, can repair the harm? The natural response is to say that if no currency of account will ever be adequate, the best we can do is make the compensation as generous as possible. Yet generous responses create problems of their own. All of the churches of Canada were responsible for running the aboriginal schools that enforced the federal policy of mandatory assimilation. In many of these schools, brutality and sexual assault were commonplace. Even where they were not, the policy itself was an assault on aboriginal identity, and the results were traumatic.
The churches now acknowledge that both the policy and its execution were indecent violations of the rights of aboriginal peoples. The apologies have been made. The question now is: What compensation should be paid to bring this matter to a close? Individual aboriginal victims have launched suits against the churches, and thanks to the ingenuity of Canada’s tort lawyers, the claims for compensation, if granted, would bankrupt most of the organizations in question. 15 The issue then becomes one of whether aboriginal rights to compensation for past injustices should be exercised in such a way as to drive organizations ministering to the spiritual needs of Canadians, Native peoples included, out of business. Now, there are some organizations — fascist political parties, for example — that have been rightly outlawed becausethey encouraged hatred, contempt, and violence towards other human beings. But the churches simply do not fall into this category — they did not preach racial hatred or contempt. Mistaken as their policies were, their missionary goals did construe aboriginal peoples as fellow human beings. On these grounds, it is hard to see that they deserve to die as institutions.
A balance will have to be found between the rights of aboriginal peoples and the rights of religious communities. Tort proceedings in court are the worst way to reconcile these rights, for the proceedings involve hundreds, if not thousands, of individual suits, and the courts are in no position to balance the collective claims of the two groups involved. The best way to proceed would be to negotiate a three-cornered settlement between Native peoples, church groups, and the federal government. Since group rights are in conflict, they must be reconciled at the political level. The harm that was done to aboriginals was a public wrong, done by our country, through the initiative of the federal government, and if we as citizens want to live in a country that respects itself, then the only way to clear the stain is for us all, and not just the churches, to pay up.
But aboriginal peoples and Québécois are not simply demanding temporary privileges to redress past wrongs. They are demanding permanent rights of self-government that are not enjoyed by other Canadians. The majority concedes the necessity of redress. It does not concede the necessity for permanent self-rule.
These twin demands for self-determination havedivided Canadian society for most of my adult life, and the conflict reached a crisis between 1982 and 1991. 16 In 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was created to bind the country together. English Canadians rallied to this dry legal document with a degree of fervour that surprised many of its authors. Quebecers did not. They believed the rights guaranteed them in the Charter were either unnecessary (since Quebec has its own charter of rights) or illegitimate (since the province did not agree to the constitution). Quebecers of nationalist persuasion remained convinced that the Charter
The churches now acknowledge that both the policy and its execution were indecent violations of the rights of aboriginal peoples. The apologies have been made. The question now is: What compensation should be paid to bring this matter to a close? Individual aboriginal victims have launched suits against the churches, and thanks to the ingenuity of Canada’s tort lawyers, the claims for compensation, if granted, would bankrupt most of the organizations in question. 15 The issue then becomes one of whether aboriginal rights to compensation for past injustices should be exercised in such a way as to drive organizations ministering to the spiritual needs of Canadians, Native peoples included, out of business. Now, there are some organizations — fascist political parties, for example — that have been rightly outlawed becausethey encouraged hatred, contempt, and violence towards other human beings. But the churches simply do not fall into this category — they did not preach racial hatred or contempt. Mistaken as their policies were, their missionary goals did construe aboriginal peoples as fellow human beings. On these grounds, it is hard to see that they deserve to die as institutions.
A balance will have to be found between the rights of aboriginal peoples and the rights of religious communities. Tort proceedings in court are the worst way to reconcile these rights, for the proceedings involve hundreds, if not thousands, of individual suits, and the courts are in no position to balance the collective claims of the two groups involved. The best way to proceed would be to negotiate a three-cornered settlement between Native peoples, church groups, and the federal government. Since group rights are in conflict, they must be reconciled at the political level. The harm that was done to aboriginals was a public wrong, done by our country, through the initiative of the federal government, and if we as citizens want to live in a country that respects itself, then the only way to clear the stain is for us all, and not just the churches, to pay up.
But aboriginal peoples and Québécois are not simply demanding temporary privileges to redress past wrongs. They are demanding permanent rights of self-government that are not enjoyed by other Canadians. The majority concedes the necessity of redress. It does not concede the necessity for permanent self-rule.
These twin demands for self-determination havedivided Canadian society for most of my adult life, and the conflict reached a crisis between 1982 and 1991. 16 In 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was created to bind the country together. English Canadians rallied to this dry legal document with a degree of fervour that surprised many of its authors. Quebecers did not. They believed the rights guaranteed them in the Charter were either unnecessary (since Quebec has its own charter of rights) or illegitimate (since the province did not agree to the constitution). Quebecers of nationalist persuasion remained convinced that the Charter
Similar Books
