In 2016, Theresa Henderson sat in the gallery of a Winnipeg courtroom and listened to a lawyer describe the residence where Henderson had spent one and a half years as “home away from home.”
Henderson could picture the two boxy white buildings, one dormitory for boys and one for girls. She remembered lying awake at night, missing her parents and siblings. She wished she could talk to them about the boys at school who called her a “squaw” and threatened to beat her up. About the van full of young men who stopped and offered her free alcohol if she came with them. About the house parent who forcibly kissed her.
The lawyer had her back turned. She was speaking to the judge, explaining how the Teulon Residence should not be considered a residential school, and therefore Canada had no obligation to the students who had lived there.
Hot tears pushed up under Henderson’s eyelids. She wished the lawyer would turn around and speak to the former students. She wished the lawyer would listen to their stories and try to understand how it felt to be sent away from your family to a place where you were expected to forget your language and traditions and melt obediently into another culture.
The hearing was part of a six-year court battle over whether the institution in Teulon, Man., qualified as a residential school and whether the students who lived there in the 1960s and 1970s were entitled to the same financial compensation as other residential school survivors.
But for Henderson, the case wasn’t about the money. It was about recognition. For many survivors, financial compensation is not the most important thing. Reconciliation requires a public acknowledgment of wrongdoing and an opportunity for the wronged to tell their stories. For this reason, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission held public hearings
across Canada. “There are no shortcuts,” said Justice Murray Sinclair, who led the commission.Henderson grew up in Split Lake
, a small community in northern Manitoba that had a school that went up to Grade 9. Her parents supported their daughter’s wish to be sent to a high school in Winnipeg. Instead, the Department of Indian Affairs enrolled Henderson at Teulon Collegiate, a public high school in Teulon, a small farming village 50 kilometres north of Winnipeg. Henderson was 14 when she boarded a bush plane and began the 870-kilometre journey to her new home.
The Teulon Residence had been built by the Presbyterian Church in the early 1900s as a boarding home for the children of missionaries or distant farming families. In 1925, it was transferred to The United Church of Canada. In 1960, the Department of Indian Affairs made arrangements to send students from northern communities there. The government would pay for their room and board, while house parents hired by the board of directors would care for the children.
During the time Henderson lived at the Teulon Residence, she endured racist taunts from students at the high school and was introduced to alcohol by friends. Most of the house parents treated her well, but she says one man sexually harassed the girls, including her. Henderson started getting in trouble for drinking with her friends. She ran away from the residence multiple times, until the Department of Indian Affairs eventually transferred her to a high school in Winnipeg.
On June 11, 2008
, then prime minister Stephen Harper stood up in
the House of Commons to apologize to the survivors of residential
for a “sad chapter” in Canada’s history, a period of more than a
century ending in the 1990s, during which the federal government took
tens of thousands of Indigenous children from their families and forced
them to attend institutions. There they were stripped of their language,
traditions, spirituality and culture in an attempt to assimilate them
into the settler society. Most of the residential schools were operated
jointly by the federal government and Anglican, Roman Catholic,
Presbyterian, Methodist and United churches. Students were indoctrinated
into Christianity and punished for speaking their own languages. Many
Henderson was working in The Pas, Man., on the
day of the apology. As she watched Harper apologize on television, she
felt as though he was speaking to her.
“The Government of Canada
sincerely apologizes and asks the forgiveness of the Aboriginal peoples
of this country for failing them so profoundly,” Harper said. It never
occurred to Henderson that her experience might not count.
apology came on the heels of the largest class-action settlement in
Canada’s history. In 2006, the Canadian government agreed to compensate
every survivor of residential schools $10,000 for their first year and
$3,000 for each subsequent year, with additional compensation for
students who had been abused.
The Indian Residential Schools
Settlement Agreement contained a list of over 130 schools whose students
were eligible for compensation. It was only when Henderson submitted
her claim that she learned Teulon wasn’t on the list. She was surprised.
Why was she left out?What Henderson didn’t know
at the time was that the Teulon Residence had
on earlier versions of the list. Cuthbert Munroe, who had also lived at
the Teulon Residence, was working with residential survivors for an
organization in Garden Hill First Nation when he saw one of the lists.
Teulon was named, but only in brackets next to Norway House. Norway
House is hundreds of kilometres north of Teulon. There’s no obvious
connection between the two communities.
But Munroe knew that
many students had been transferred from Norway House to Teulon when the
former closed down in the late 1960s. He wondered if this connection had
led to the two names being erroneously combined. A couple of years
later when the settlement agreement was implemented, Teulon had
disappeared from the list.
Munroe began scouring United Church
archives and meeting with Indigenous leaders. He wanted to get Teulon
back on the list. The settlement agreement contained a mechanism by
which institutions could be added to the agreement, provided they met
two criteria. The Canadian government had to have removed children from
their homes and placed them in the residence for educational purposes.
And Canada had to have been “jointly or solely” responsible for the
operation of the residence and the care of the children.
and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs wrote to Ottawa asking for Teulon to
be added to the agreement. Their request was declined, so they hired a
lawyer and, in 2014, brought their case before Perry Schulman, a
Manitoba judge tasked with helping administer the settlement.
request was one of many. By the end of 2017, Canada had received
applications for 1,531 separate institutions to be added to the
agreement. To date, all but nine of these institutions have been ruled
ineligible. In some cases, insufficient information was available. Some
were day schools, which were not part of the settlement. Others were
ruled out because they were operated by provincial governments or
churches rather than the federal government.
listened to the lawyers’ arguments that the Canadian government was
responsible for the Teulon residents and that the institution should
qualify as a residential school. He also heard a counter-argument from
the Crown, which contended that Teulon was never meant to be on the
final list, and that since it had been owned by the United Church and
governed by a church-appointed board, the federal government wasn’t
Justice Schulman sided with the Crown. Neither side
could explain the discrepancy between the two lists. Ultimately, the
final one stood. And, although the government had placed children at the
residence, Schulman said it hadn’t been responsible for their care.
was discouraged. There was still the possibility of an appeal, but the
Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs told him they couldn’t pay more legal fees.
Munroe had been working on the case for several years on his own time.
No one seemed willing to help him take it further. But he wanted justice
to be served.
There were an estimated 1,000 students who had
boarded at the Teulon Residence. They had all been separated from their
families and endured the same cultural whitewashing that other survivors
had. Why should they be denied compensation?
So Munroe found new
lawyers willing to work on the case and urged people to contribute to
the cause. Henderson and a group of women organized two socials that
raised thousands of dollars for legal costs.
On Nov. 22, 2016
Charles Huband, a lawyer with the firm Taylor McCaffrey LLP, appealed
Justice Schulman’s decision before the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Huband
believed there was ample evidence to show that Canada had been “jointly
responsible” for both the residence and the students living there. Yes,
the United Church had owned the facility, and the board had hired the
house parents. But the Department of Indian Affairs had taken the
students from their communities, paid for their room and board (which in
some years constituted 80 percent of the residence’s annual funding),
regularly inspected the facility, provided guidance counsellors and
medical examinations for the students, and given money for school
supplies and clothing.
There was a clause in the settlement used
to help determine government responsibility: Had Canada “stood as the
parent to the child”? Huband believed it had.
listened to Huband’s argument. But after considering it, they dismissed
the appeal. No palpable error had been made in the first trial, Justice
Holly Beard wrote in her decision.
In his factum submitted to
the Manitoba Court of Appeal, Huband described the settlement agreement
as a treaty. The spirit of a treaty is reconciliation, not exactitude,
he wrote, and therefore the courts should be generous in their
definition of residential schools.
But Justice Beard took a
narrower view. She didn’t use the word “treaty” to characterize the
settlement agreement. Instead, she quoted material that referred to it
as a “compromise” and a “deal.”
After the ruling, Munroe’s legal
team sought permission to appeal the decision before the Supreme Court
of Canada, but the request was turned down
. It was the end of the road
for Munroe. After six years, he had lost. With the court’s decision
Henderson was left feeling as though the prime minister’s apology had
been snatched away from her. She and other former students of the Teulon
Residence say that the reconciliation process has failed them. Their
wounds have deepened. They’ve been denied the opportunity to tell their
stories and to have their injury publicly acknowledged.
Henderson filed her claim for compensation, she filled out a form
detailing abuse she says she experienced. But she never put it in the
mail. “Why send it out,” she asks, “when we’re not recognized as
residential school survivors anyway?”This story first appeared in
The Observer's May 2018 edition with the title "Invisible survivors."
Josiah Neufeld is a writer in Winnipeg.
Keep it free!
If you enjoy reading our online stories about ethical living, justice and faith, please make a donation to the Friends of The Observer Fund. Supporting our award-winning journalism will help you and others to continue to access ucobserver.org for free in the months to come.