Official government apologies strike some cynics as political manoeuvring and often the cynicism is justified. It's easy to say "sorry" but much more difficult to right wrongs and learn from mistakes.
But some apologies can be truly meaningful, as was the case when John Duncan, the newly appointed Indian Affairs minister, stood in a gymnasium in Inukjuak, in northern Quebec, and apologized for a government program that shipped Inuit families to the remote Far North during the 1950s, where they struggled to survive.
"The government of Canada deeply regrets the mistakes and broken promises of this dark chapter of our history and apologizes for the High Arctic relocation having taken place," he said. In the audience were members of the local community, as well as families from the communities of Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay -- where Inuit families were transplanted -- who were flown in for the occasion.
Duncan's words received polite applause. Then when Phoebe Atagootaaluk Aculiak, who is a descendant of the relocated families, stood up and read the names of those who did not survive, people in the audience began to sob.
Five decades later, the impact of this misguided policy on Inuit families and communities remains fresh and raw, despite other attempts by the federal government to make amends, notably, a $10-million fund for the families of the relocated Inuit. What was missing was official acknowledgement that the Inuit had been victimized.
Given the audience's emotional response, the apology -- as an acknowledgement of wrongdoing -- had meaning. This exercise in collective remembrance was also a timely one, in light of rising anxieties today about Canadian sovereignty in the north.
In the 1950s, the federal government relocated 19 families from Inukjuak in northern Quebec to Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord in the colder and less hospitable High Arctic. Another three families were moved from Pond Inlet to the communities. They were told they could return home if they wanted, but that promise was not kept.
The objective of the policy remains murky. The government long claimed that the relocation program had humane intentions and was part of an effort to improve economic conditions. But there is suspicion that, in reality, government officials of the time saw the Inuit as convenient instruments to be used to assert Canadian ownership of the north. By dropping Inuit in remote locations, Canada would be able to show the world that this was not abandoned territory.
The destructive impact of the policy on Inuit families was not fully known until hearings for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples took place in the early 1990s. Indeed, until last week most Canadians probably knew little of the relocation policy and the harm it did.
Today, the world is greedily eyeing the Arctic as a source of untapped resources and profitable transportation routes. Once again, there is a certain urgency facing Canada to assert sovereignty of the north. But this time, the Inuit must be partners, not mere pawns, in that effort.
Ottawa Citizen
