Truth Must Accompany Reconciliation

The Canadian flag flies at half-mast over the Parliament Buildings during a ceremony on Parliament Hill on the eve of the first National Day of Truth and Reconciliation on Sept. 29, 2021. The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld

Commentary

In 2021, Canadians were told that a mass grave had been discovered at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. The announcement shocked the country. Flags were lowered. Statues were removed or toppled. Churches were vandalized and burned. Governments issued statements of collective shame. Canadians were told that a horrifying secret had finally been uncovered.

The reaction would have been understandable had the evidence matched the claims. What had actually been announced was the identification of soil anomalies through ground-penetrating radar. Further investigation was required to determine their nature. Yet almost overnight, tentative findings became established facts. Potential graves became graves. Graves became mass graves. Questions became heresy.

Five years later, Canadians are still waiting for the evidence that was widely assumed to exist from the beginning. Even some of the country’s largest media organizations have begun to acknowledge shortcomings in how the story was reported. The recent Globe and Mail editorial admitting failures in its coverage is a welcome, if overdue, recognition that journalism must be driven by evidence rather than assumptions.

The Kamloops story exposed a broader problem within Canadian public life. Too many institutions abandoned skepticism precisely when skepticism was most needed. Politicians, academics, media organizations, school boards, corporations, and advocacy groups rushed to endorse conclusions before the facts had been established. The normal standards of inquiry were suspended because the narrative was considered too important to question.

That is not how a serious country conducts itself. A democratic society depends upon the willingness to follow evidence wherever it leads. That principle applies whether the evidence confirms popular beliefs or challenges them. It applies whether the subject is politics, science, religion, or history.

The history of Indian Residential Schools is neither a simple story of evil nor a simple story of benevolence. Some students suffered abuse, neglect, loneliness, and family separation. These experiences deserve acknowledgement and historical scrutiny. At the same time, many students received education, vocational training, medical care, religious instruction, and opportunities that would otherwise have been unavailable in remote communities.

Some former students later spoke positively about teachers, mentors, and experiences that helped shape their lives. Both realities can be true at the same time. A mature society should be capable of discussing both without fear and without ideological pressure.

Unfortunately, much of the public discussion over the past decade has encouraged Canadians to see only one side of this history. Complexity has been replaced by ideology. Nuance has been replaced by slogans. Historical inquiry has too often been replaced by moral certainty.

The result has been damaging. More than 100 churches were vandalized or destroyed. Public trust in institutions declined. Entire generations of Canadians were encouraged to view their country through the lens of allegations that had not yet been substantiated. Meanwhile, those who asked reasonable questions were frequently denounced rather than answered.

Canada’s relationship with indigenous peoples remains one of the most important issues facing the country. Addressing present challenges requires honesty about the past. But honesty demands that we distinguish between what is known, what is suspected, and what remains unproven. History deserves better than assumptions presented as facts.

National maturity begins when we stop treating history as a weapon and start treating it as a search for truth. Only then can Canadians confront the past with confidence, fairness, and intellectual honesty. Truth comes before judgment. It always must.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.