A resolution proposed by two BC lawyers to amend language in the Law Society of British Columbia's Indigenous Intercultural Course has reignited debate over claims about unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School, with concerns about factual accuracy being weighed against accusations of denialism and racism.

At the core of the controversy are the statements made in the mandatory course, which references the discovery of “an unmarked burial site containing the bodies of 215 children” at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. Lawyers James I. Heller and Mark T.K. Berry submitted a resolution to change the wording to “potentially unmarked burial site” and to remove a sentence stating, “the discovery confirms what survivors have been saying all along.”

Heller and Berry argue that no bodies have yet been discovered at the site and that the phrasing should reflect this uncertainty. In fact, they cite a change made by Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc in 2023, where “anomalies” replaced the word “remains.” They contend their goal is factual accuracy in a mandatory course for lawyers, not denialism.

mILLIONS SPENT ON INVESTIGATION

Coastal Front, which previously covered this issue in a May 2024 article, pointed out the lack of confirmed human remains at the Kamloops site three years after the initial announcement. The federal government allocated $7.9 million to investigate the site, yet no clear accounting has been provided on how these funds were used.

Coastal Front also reported that the initial announcement, which referred to the “confirmation of the remains of 215 children,” has since shifted to describing 215 “anomalies” or soil disturbances. This shift in language has fuelled criticism that the original claim may have been made hastily, without sufficient evidence. Academics, including Jacques Rouillard from the Université de Montréal, have called for a more thorough investigation to clarify the facts, given the lack of concrete findings at the Kamloops site.

not mutually exclusive claims

The emotional response to the Kamloops announcement coincided with more than 100 incidents of vandalism and arson attacks on churches across the country. These acts of destruction occurred amid the resurgence of attention on the history of residential schools in Canada, and the events underscored the need for a transparent investigation into the Kamloops claims, to either confirm or dispel the narrative of unmarked graves—yet answers remain elusive.

The residential school system in Canada was notorious for its harsh conditions and mistreatment of indigenous children. Many have recounted stories of physical and emotional abuse, neglect, and forced assimilation. The schools were often underfunded, leading to inadequate food and care. In one instance, a principal at Kamloops Residential School in 1910 admitted that the government did not provide enough money to properly feed the students. These conditions contributed to high mortality rates among the children, with many dying from diseases such as tuberculosis.

Acknowledging the profound immorality of the residential school system and recognizing that no bodies have been uncovered at the Kamloops site to date are not mutually exclusive claims. Stating the latter is as straightforward as noting that fire is hot. The suggestion that acknowledging this objective, unambiguous fact amounts to racism or denialism—or that it somehow diminishes the reality of Canada’s residential school system—falls far short of the basic logic one should expect from BC’s regulatory body for lawyers.

Lawyers condemned

Despite the arguments for precision, the resolution faced significant backlash. At the Law Society of BC's annual general meeting, the proposal was narrowly defeated by a vote of 1,683 against 1,499 in favour. Critics, including the BC First Nations Justice Council (BCFNJC), condemned the resolution as harmful and insensitive to residential school survivors. Judith Sayers, a director on the BCFNJC board, said the resolution undermines the testimonies of survivors and the historical record of indigenous experiences.

“The BC First Nations Justice Council, we stand as witnesses to the testimony of the Indian residential school survivors who mostly now are all elders and who have courageously shared their stories and experiences time and time again,” Sayers told Canadian Lawyer. “The countless number of people who have witnessed children being buried is strong. These accounts are acceptable in court and an important part of the historical record and must be given the respect they deserve.”

Sayers further pointed out that while the term “anomalies” may now be used in public statements, this does not negate the “very real evidence” of unmarked graves emerging from “other” former residential school sites across the country. Christina Cook of the BC First Nations Justice Council warned that the resolution could fuel “residential school denialism,” a term that has been echoed by other indigenous and legal organizations.

Supporters of the resolution, however, argue that the pushback has been disproportionate. Heller expressed frustration at being labelled racist, stating that his intentions were solely to ensure accuracy in a professional context. Berry, who has reportedly defended indigenous clients throughout his career, emphasized that the factual discovery process should not be sacrificed for sensitivity. He reiterated that he believes unmarked graves likely exist across Canada, but none have been confirmed at Kamloops so far.

The Law Society of BC responded by stating that the views expressed in the resolution do not reflect its stance. In a public statement, the society reaffirmed its commitment to “advancing truth and reconciliation.”

The debate comes at a crucial time for the legal community, with the government enacting legislation aimed at overhauling the Law Society's structure, including greater consultation with indigenous organizations. Acknowledging the immorality of residential schools, while recognizing that no human remains have been uncovered at Kamloops to date, presents no contradiction. Critics argue that the Law Society’s approach leans toward appeasement rather than fully engaging with the facts, while others suggest the move is purely motivated by “denialism.”