Why is there no Inuk representative on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

The commission is inspired by the South African commission, a grand political gesture rooted in humanity and forgiveness rather than power and bloody state-sanctioned revenge against the so-called white society which had brutally enslaved a so-called black society for over 100 years.

Inuit did not suffer bullets, hangings and imprisonment. Instead, in the 1950s, they were given a choice by Canada: Give us your children to feed and educate far away for as long as we wish. Say no and our long economic relationship ends. Go to the floe edge to go it alone and test your luck as you did hundreds of years ago.

What parent would reject a steady food supply and the certainty of a roof overhead for their children? Why would they choose the certain hardship of living off the land without the support of 20th century society all Canadians of the day shared and took for granted?

They had no choice. That was their pain. How many are alive to tell of it?

The pain of the children was to have their parents replaced with people they did not know. Inuit culture and language was banned. Discipline and authority was applied without affection.

There were instances of brutality, sexual and physical. The widespread emotional brutality of separating mothers and fathers from their children went unnoticed by Canadians. The consequences are felt through the North today, as survivors and their children wrestle with the demons such immoral policies create.

Dark, shameful emotions are invited in recounting the Inuit residential school experience. Every effort should have been made to ensure an Inuit presence on the commission, someone credible to encourage other Inuit to risk the personal turmoil.

Yet Canada is treating this search for truth like any other money gobbling Royal Commission. In his letter to Nunavut News/North, Indian and Northern Affairs minister Chuck Strahl defended the lack of an Inuk commissioner by shifting responsibility to his Inuk advisor Mary Simon, President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, saying she agreed with having a non-Inuit commissioner.

Simon, with bureaucratic correctness, answers that only two Inuit applied for the job. Neither was good enough.

It appears Strahl and Simon were only filling a job position rather than finding someone to accept a solemn duty to uncover the truth for both Inuit and millions of Canadians who don't know this ugly history.

The only "applicant" we know of was Peter Irniq. He's the two-time MLA, former Nunavut commissioner, with a long history in Inuit organizations and an honorary doctorate degree in civil law.

Irniq was good enough to meet with and advise Prime Minister Harper when he apologised to aboriginal people for the residential school policy. He was good enough to meet with the pope. But Irniq's application was rejected early on. Calling for a boycott because no Inuit was chosen, he could easily be accused of self-interest. He would have been silenced by the appointment of an Inuk commissioner.

If Irniq wasn't good enough, who would be? It could only be another Inuk with lots of public service experience at a high level.

Appointment appropriate method

There are Inuit who fit the bill but they aren't looking for jobs. They would have to be asked, convinced to offer their special experience to the service of all Inuit. To expect such accomplished people to "apply" is an insult. It explains why there were only two Inuit applicants.

To avoid failure of the commission when it travels in Nunavut, the three commissioners should step down to allow three Inuit commissioners to take their place.

That healing step would foster a true spirit of reconciliation, much closer to the South African model than the soulless bureaucratic model we have now.

--Bruce Valpy is Managing Editor of Northern News Services