 Good morning, my name is Jordan Cantwell, I'm the moderator of the United Church of Canada. Thank you for joining us this morning as we meet on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin people and we are grateful for their stewardship of this land and for their hospitality which allows us to meet here today. We're here to signal our intent as an ecumenical community to answer call to action 48 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. This call is to adopt the principles norms and standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a framework for reconciliation. The right Reverend Mark McDonald, National Indigenous Anglican Bishop, will speak to the statement and Truth and Reconciliation Commissioner Marie Wilson will speak to the call to action. Also available for comment afterwards are Archbishop Fred Hiltz of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Reverend Karen Horst, moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Reverend Susan Johnson, National Bishop of the Anglican, sorry the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, Manuela Popovich representing the Religious Society of Friends, the Quakers and Major Shari Russell, Territorial Aboriginal Ministry Consultant for the Salvation Army. I'm going to turn it over to Mark McDonald. Thank you. As mentioned I'm the National Indigenous Anglican Bishop, the first to hold this position. And I think it's important and significant to note that when the relationship between the Anglican Church of Canada and Indigenous Peoples began, they not only did not imagine that there would be somebody in this position, they took a number of steps to make sure that there would be no one in this position, that Indigenous people would not survive as a culturally distinct people in Canada or in the church. So it's very significant that I'm standing here today to make a comment about the statement and very moving for me to read the statement, to understand it and to understand its import. What the church is saying is that it will never again partner with cultural genocide. That by affirming the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and implementing it in its life and ways, the church promises not to be a part of such a thing in the future and to extricate those remnants of it that are still a part of our society today. More importantly for us who are a part of a network of Indigenous people in our church and in other churches, the churches are saying that they will allow us to become who God has called us to be and we are free at this point to become who God called us to be. The church has said that they will be a partner to, the churches have said that they will be partners to us in life in a way that before they were partners with what brought so much pain and misery. It's very important, very blessed to be here today to give thanks and to express our appreciation. Now let's get down to implementation. Thank you. I'm standing before you as one of the three commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Justice Marie Sinclair, Chief Wilton Littlechild and myself, Marie Wilson, we completed our work and submitted our report in December of this past year. When we began our work, we declared, and I remember myself saying in my very first public statement, the day one of our job, that the work we were doing was a sacred trust, that we were making a promise to the children who had lived through their residential school experiences and who were committing through the work of the TRC to teach our country about what happened to them, that we would hold their stories in sacred trust and that we would make sure that they were respected, remembered, and never forgotten or denied again. I think in saying those words, we didn't actually fully realize to what extent the word abuse would be described by the word spiritual. We knew about physical abuse. We knew we were going to hear a lot about sexual abuse. We knew that those two things combined would lead to emotional and psychological abuse. But I for certain was not expecting to hear as many times people articulate specifically spiritual abuse as part of what they experienced in the schools. As I stand here today, I hear the voices of so many survivors before me, as I always do. And I remember one of them saying, before I ever set foot in a residential school, I knew who I was. I knew who I was in my place in creation. And I knew what my relationship was with creator and how to speak to him and listen to him in prayer. These are all variations of spiritual acts that almost all of us were raised with one way and another, but not things that were allowed in the schools and things that were not allowed by law in our country when so many of the sacred ceremonies were outlawed. The significance of today is within the context of all 94 of our calls to action because we commissioners did not think of these articulate these and draft these in isolation. We drafted them in response to the 7000 people who spoke to us and the independent research that we commissioned in all of our own reading and research as well. And we did not issue them to make people feel comfortable. And to invite everyone in as I have sometimes said and others I've heard say as well, to a process of reconciliation that would amount to a kinder, gentler form of assimilation. We put those calls to action down and we called them calls to action because we did not want them to seem optional. We wanted them to sound imperative. And we wanted them to disrupt and to make us uncomfortable. So we would have to think about what do we start doing new that we did not do before and what do we start doing differently from how we have done things before. The significance of this particular call to action number 48 and the response and I want to say the bold response, the courageous response of the faith communities is multiple. One is because in terms of the UN declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples, the other parties to the settlement agreement that created our TRC, being the government of Canada, being the national churches who were named in the court case that created the TRC, being the Catholic entities, the Anglican Church, the United Church and the Presbyterian Church, being also the assembly of First Nations and the Inuit regional corporations through Inuit, Tapuri, Kanatami and the survivors themselves. All of those other parties with the exception of the churches have already publicly declared their position on the UN declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples. And now we have something today that is not just the faith communities named in the action that led to the creation of the TRC, but many other faith communities stepping forward and saying we too have been part of the colonization that and supported indirectly the residential school system and other forms of displacement, including spiritual displacement of indigenous peoples. So I think the coming forward of this community of faith is extremely important. I think the fact that people are standing together to speak to their pledge to keep reconciliation as a going forward thing and not a moment in time. And I think in particular, the words on the page that promised the forward action is a way of breathing life and spirit into the intention of reconciliation that I think will serve us all well. I'm very honored to be here on behalf of the commissioners to acknowledge this important work and to make my own pledge on behalf of survivors to continue to hold the faith communities to account that they will do what they say they are going to do. So thank you very much for allowing me to share in this moment in this day. Thank you both. We're now open for questions. I have two questions. First, Sir Gloria Gallagher with Globe Mail. Where are the Catholic entities? Did you guys reach out to them? Were they asked to be here today? Did you just ignore them? Thank you. The conference of Catholic bishops has issued their own statement. And the community, the Catholic religious communities have signed on to this statement, but they weren't available to be here for the press conference today. So they're in agreement with what you're doing or the the the religious communities have signed on and the Catholic bishops have their own statement that they have already issued. So yeah, what is the practical follow up what you've done today? Well, is there is there any actual thing that happens besides the declaration? What what is the potential thing that will result from today in practical terms for First Nations people for inuit for Métis? I would be glad to respond to that. For us in in the Anglican Church and in other churches who are indigenous people, it means everything because we have been sliced and diced by the borders of colonial occupation for so many years. This allows us to organize ourselves in our own way, which we're already taking steps to do. It means that our way of life, our practices, our values cannot be can no longer be excluded or or precluded by membership in this church. So it the practical implications have already begun to show themselves. But now that there is this statement, we will respond vigorously. And we believe that the church will respond vigorously back in a positive way. I have a question for any one of those the spiritual leaders who want to answer this. When you talk about spiritual abuse, was preaching the gospel and missionary efforts to bring indigenous people to Jesus Christ part of spiritual abuse and colonialization? Because it seems to me that it is a bit inseparable? I think that I would say in the way that the gospel was preached. I would say that it was oftentimes spiritual abuse, not always, but oftentimes. The reality now is that a massive number of indigenous people are baptized members of Christian churches. And that can't be changed in any easy way. What I would say is that the gospel in its primal form, which was God is near to you, turn around and believe the good news. This is quite a bit different from the way that the gospel was preached. I would say to that like other colonized people, the gospel was preached to civilize or to make make make us like other people. The opposite happened. And this is often the case. As we look as we look around the world, the gospel was often preached to extinguish identity. And the result was the opposite. If I may just add a word to that, not from the perspective of one of the faith leaders, but you know, your question is a really important one. And it speaks to a broader question about the work of the commission itself. And that is that there is no one aspect of the residential school story where we can speak in absolutes that one size fits all, that the spiritual experience of one child was the same for every child. But what I can tell you is that among the statements, the thousands of statements that we received, we very, very definitely heard strong statements about the nature of imposition of a way of prayer, of prayerful practice of daily commitment, commitments to someone else's spiritual traditions. But we also heard and this is and we heard people say vehemently, I hate the church, I will never set foot inside the church again, we definitely heard that. We also heard people say, it hurts me, it injures me to hear people speak ill of my church. My church and my faith has been key to my healing. And the people in my church have been very supportive of the journey that I'm on. So it's not the same for everyone. And then we heard many people say, I love my church and I love my cultural ways and I don't see why I have to choose. I understand. And I remember an elder speaking at our last national event saying, there are many ways to speak to the one God. So so people are where they are on the spiritual healing journey, just as they are on the emotional and physical healing journeys. And I think people who have given it deep thought are able and many did say this, it wasn't the church who did these things to us. It was individuals who hid behind the church who did these things to us. And I think that level of differentiation is available for some, but not for all. Just about the push for the Papal Apology, there's been the push for the Pope to actually apologize on Canadian soil. Just wondering if there's any update on that front. Yes, I was wondering the same thing, because in fact, I don't know if you know it in your careful reading of the 94 calls to action, but there were really two that had a timeline attached. And that was one of them as well as was this one. And so I don't know the latest. I do know that it is ongoing. I know that there are people within the specific faith communities that are working on it. I also know as we all know that in fact, as I did not know as a child, I was reflecting on this as I was coming today, when I was a little kid, you know, I didn't know that churches were institutions. I didn't know that churches ran schools. You know, I thought churches ran Sunday school. But churches are also big institutions and they have systems and structures and governments and all of that. So it's somewhere in that system. And I'm fairly certain that I may not know the latest on that, but I know that it's still a very active file. Of the Pope apologizing on Canadian soil, when you talk about the healing process and you talk about obviously the Catholic Church being an important part of that healing process, what do you think it would mean or what have you heard that it would mean from people in your discussion? Well, certainly there are people here who can speak more accurately to the complexities of the Catholic Church structure and systems. But I know that the way that it is structured with this many, many entities means that in fact, there have been a number of apologies from Catholic diocese and individual bishops and so on. But to your question, why is it so important for us? It was important to say because we heard it so many times. We heard many survivors say, my church has not apologized to me. And they are talking about the church in a collective sense of that faith tradition, that denomination, that denomination that ran the school they went to. And I think in part two, if I may say so, I think it may be in part a response, a comparative response, knowing how long ago and how deeply fouled and how frequently repeated the apologies have been from other faith communities and specifically the churches, the Anglicans and Presbyterians and United who were attached to the residential schools. So I think people feel like they're missing something. And having it be on Canadian soil is because that's what they said. No one's apologized to me, survivors would say. And they want to hear that. Through all of the testimony that you heard and what people said to you, is there any concern that despite this United Front and the messages also from the statement from the Catholic Church, that that still won't really be enough because the hurt is so deep? I'm certain it won't be enough. None of it is enough. It's all just movement forward. It's all just contributing parts to a going forward shift. And it goes to my response to the earlier question. There is no one thing that's going to be perfect for everyone anyway. But I do think that people have to keep trying. And you know, one of the reasons why I think this response from the faith communities is important is because we have heard from many, many, not only church leaders, but congregational members from all denominations with a desire to do something to set things right. We all of us have inherited this Canadian history and people within churches have inherited their church history. And I haven't met anyone who said I'm really happy with the history of our church around this issue. I haven't met anyone who said that people are struggling with reconciling their own notions of their church and this big discovery of what happened in the past. So I think there's been a kind of apprehension in a way or or the potential of apprehension to say we really blew it last time, you know, nervousness about getting it wrong again. So I think anything that is an attempt and that is done genuinely and is done in collaboration with Indigenous peoples is worth a try and it won't all work. I'm certain of that. But some things will work and we already know examples of some things that have been really powerful and compelling in support of the fact that people are connected to the Kairos network and the kind of social justice activities that happens collectively through that structure but also what individual churches are doing and the ongoing educational work that they're taking on and delivering. All these things add up to a shift in awareness which has got to help feed a shift in attitude which has got to help inspire changes in action. My one question so I get it started in my mind. Are you then committing all the churches that are here today that no Presbyterian minister, no Salvation Army leader will ever be allowed now to say to their Indigenous congregation, look, you guys just can't do sweat lodges there just or you can't do smudging ceremonies or like no drums in the church. That's just not part of this. Is this the practical implication that you have to allow Indigenous tradition and alongside spirit, your own church, is this what we're saying today? I'm major Sherry Russell with the Salvation Army. In answer to that question, it has been, what do I want to say, allowing and empowering Indigenous people to speak into their experience of the church and raising up leaders that can help guide and direct and know what that looks like for the Indigenous community. What that looks like across Canada will be different. We might practice sweat lodges on the prairies, but in BC it will look different because of the Indigenous experience there. And so looking to our Indigenous leaders for guidance and direction and being able to help guide and direct the denominational leaders in that process will be important. I think that's what this does is elevates their voice and recognizes their unique way of spirituality and of worshiping God. Susan Johnson, National Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. Our church is a church without significant Indigenous presence, in fact a handful of Indigenous members. So these kinds of questions aren't things that are going to be germane. So why is it important for our church and for other churches that don't have significant Indigenous presence within the church to make a statement about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? It's because we're Canadians and we recognize that we have not spoken out when we should have spoken out. And it recognizes that we are part of a system that has continued to be corrupted. And so for us it's an ongoing commitment to evaluate how we participate in Canadian society and to continue to do education with our members. One of the things Dr. Wilson has said repeatedly is that we know, despite the work of the TRC, that there are many Canadians who have not yet engaged with this important issue or these many important issues and I would say that would be the same for people in our church. So it's our commitment to continue to talk into the people in our church, to talk into government, to working with partners who do have Indigenous peoples within their communities and making relationships with a broader community so that we can make a contribution towards reconciliation as we move forward. I just want to follow up on Gloria's question because there is such a thing called syncretism, where you start to take two religions and you combine them. I know in the Catholic Church there is a great openness to smudging and drumming and other kinds of things so that there are ways to integrate practices but if you're doing it from a Christian perspective they get baptized in a sense. So I wonder whether anybody wants to speak to if you're baptized as a particular faith, whether that faith has any right to say these are the things that govern the faith, these are the things that you believe in, these are the things that you do, or does that fall into a danger of cultural genocide? How do you find that proper balance? I appreciate your answer. I'm Madame Wilson but I'm just wondering if the faith leaders have anything to add on that. Hi, as someone that is Indigenous and part of the faith community this has been an ongoing personal experience for myself and I had an elder once say to me that all of our cultures or all of our ceremonies and a lot of our cultural values pointed the way for the gospel, for the good news and when the missionaries came we got religion, we got structure and so there's a sense where if we can find the cultural expression of the gospel within our own culture that is good news and I think that's what freedom and that is what God has called us to. That's what our creators made us to be and so to find that nugget, to find that way, that expression and to live that out in a good way. I think that's a very good question. I should say that I received my primary formation in a place where I believe that if they were told that they were allowed to follow their practices they would be quite surprised to find out that they weren't allowed to follow their practices. So depending upon where you are there are some places who have been practicing this with some level of openness for quite a while. I think that syncretism is something that the larger church was guilty of in the cooperation and in the development of the residential schools. I think the larger churches has a problem with syncretism with a economic system that is less than wholesome and certainly less than Christian. So there are a lot of ways in which syncretism affects us and I think that indigenous people are perhaps syncretistic than other people. In any event the judgments on what is appropriate and proper will be made by indigenous people and not by the larger church. That's really the bottom line for us and so I guess all people have a danger of syncretism. I don't think that we have any particular or unique danger to it and in any event we'll make the decision about what is appropriate and what isn't. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, here we go. Come around. Come this way, Jordan.