Module 10: Indigenous Movements and Reconciliation Efforts

The Indian Residential Schools (IRS) system was acknowledged by Canada’s Governor General in 2004 as “Canada’s greatest national shame” (cited in Stanton 2011). The IRS system, a formal and mandatory structure enforced by the federal government, has been recognized as causing major socio-economic effects in Indigenous communities, including the obstruction of cultural values and practices, loss of traditional land and language skills, and the development of social pathologies (including the interruption of parenting skills) for many First Nations in Canada. Unlike other international truth and reconciliation commissions (e.g., Uganda, Nepal, El Salvador, Guatemala, South Africa, Chile), the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada grew out of Canada’s largest class action settlement, the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA). The IRSSA has set aside $1.9 billion for the approximately 80,000 living survivors of IRS schools, funds for commemorative projects, funds for healing projects, and the individual mechanisms (Common Experience Payment and Independent Assessment Process) for survivors who experienced physical or sexual trauma while at residential schools.

Kim Stanton (2011) notes that the IRSSA and the TRC were not commissioned due to public and government concern for Indian Residential Schools (IRS) survivors, but to avoid costly litigation for the government (p.4). The TRC was not a formal legal process and strived to shift the focus of the Commission from being lawyer-centered to victim-centered. Survivors felt strongly that a truth commission was necessary to address widespread ignorance amongst non-Indigenous Canadians about the IRS system and its ongoing legacy in Indigenous communities (Stanton 2011, 6). In a general sense, the TRC’s mandate is to educate the public through the creation of a historical record of the IRS system. Although titled “Truth and Reconciliation”, the TRC mandate did not provide much detail with respect to the reconciliation aspect of its work (Stanton 2011, 10). Stanton notes:

Despite the absence of a specific mandate to accomplish reconciliation, the TRC issued a final report with recommendations of how all Canadians can work towards reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous inhabitants. In the following section, we will explore the theoretical concepts of reconciliation in Canada.

In 2015, the Justin Trudeau government pledged to implement all 94 TRC recommendations, including a national inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. The Recommendations are broadly divided into two main areas: Legacy and Reconciliation. Recommendations in the Legacy section are divided into sections on child welfare, education, health, and justice, whereby the Report calls upon government and service providers to take specific actions in these areas to remedy socio-economic, political, and legal disadvantages resulting from the IRS aftermath. The Reconciliation section advocates for a number of structural governmental actions and reforms, most notably the full implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).  Calls in the Reconciliation section also seek to affirm Treaty rights, including the repudiation that European settlers had sovereignty over Indigenous lands and peoples through concepts such as terra nullius.

Learning Activity 10-2

The TRC Recommendations also are directed at newcomers or recent immigrants to Canada. View the final Recommendation of the Calls to Action (#94, see Required Readings).

Do you think this is significant? Why or why not? Give some explanation for your position on the whiteboard below.

---

Next, watch the video Reconciliation report card from CBC’s Power & Politics, about the 2016 Implementation of three Calls to Action. Observe how First Nations, Inuit, and Metis leaders feel about the TRC recommendations and ongoing actions.

Figure 10-1: Artwork: “Decolonize”. Source: https://feralfutures.wordpress.com/decolonization/ Permission: This material has been reproduced in accordance with the University of Saskatchewan interpretation of Sec.30.04 of the Copyright Act.

As mentioned, the concept of reconciliation is somewhat ambiguous. The IRS framed the TRC as part of a reconciliatory effort of “rebuilding and renewing…the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians” and recognizes that it requires commitment from all Canadians. Because the government and involved churches already acknowledged abuses of the IRS system, the TRC was not intended to convince Commissioners these abuses took place, but rather record them and offer recommendations for future action.

Stanton (2011) noted that the means to reconciliation include “truth telling, acknowledgement of past wrongs, reparations for the victims, addressing the structural causes of the wrongs, and a rebalancing between societal groups to prevent the harms recurring” (11). Reconciliation has also been conceptualized “not as an endpoint, but as an ever-deepening process” (Nagy 2011, 314).

Paulette Regan expresses that reconciliation is about “unsettling the settler within”. She calls upon non-Indigenous Canadians to question historical beliefs about the relationship between settlers and Indigenous peoples and to take responsibility in creating an ongoing relationship that is transformative of social relations. Regan explains that settlers need to consider the possibility that the Indigenous and non-Indigenous relationship(s) has never been predominantly peaceful or reconciliatory, and that non-Indigenous people should question why they have known so little about the colonial history within Canada or the abuses that occurred in the IRS system.

Adam Barker echoes this, noting that many settler Canadians have failed to see their own “colonial power” that results from the history of colonialism, including the IRS system (Barker 2012). Therefore, reconciliation should arguably also include mechanisms that address historical or contemporary myths about Canadian society and history that rationalize current and past colonial practices of the government. This includes calling into question the idea that North America (Turtle Island) was “nobody’s land” when settlers made contact with Indigenous peoples, questioning the history of the expansion of Canada as a country that glosses over violence against Indigenous peoples, and rebutting the institutional policies used by the government for assimilation that went largely unchallenged by non-Indigenous society.

Instrumental to this call is the concept of settler colonialism, defined as “land dispossession and the dissolution of the indigenous population occupying the land” by a settler society (Nagy, 315).  Therefore, reconciliation is not simply about acknowledging past injustices, it is also about acknowledging that past injustices are still present in current socio-political structures in which all Canadians operate. John Paul Lederach (1998) explains that true reconciliation is about remembering and change, rather than forgiving and forgetting (245).

Much discussion of reconciliation also calls upon all citizens to embrace decolonization. Like the term “reconciliation”, decolonization is also ambiguous and can mean different visions for different groups. For some scholars, decolonization means dismantling formal colonial structures, including the Indian Act, and reinforcing Treaty relationships. Others emphasize the need for acknowledgment and respect of unceded Indigenous sovereignty over the political, economic, and social decisions affecting Indigenous communities. Some scholars go further still, theorizing that colonization was intrinsically linked to the reconceptualization of shared land to land-as-property (Tuck and Yang 2012). For these scholars, “decolonization brings about the repatriation of Indigenous land and life” (Tuck and Yang 2012, 1). Taiaiake Alfred promotes land restitution, without this, reconciliation is simply “pacifying discourse” that absolves settler society of its colonial injustices (cited in Nagy 2017, 316). In many of these discussions about reconciliation and decolonization, the exact actions to be taken differ depending on perspective, while the general understanding of a need for social transformation (including the re-valuation of Indigenous language, culture, and agency) seems to be threaded throughout.

Figure 10-2: Street art in Montreal: “Decolonize Turtle Island”. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Decolonize_Turtle_Island.jpg Permission: CC BY-SA 3.0 Courtesy of Gates of Ale.

Reconciliation processes in Canada may have increased momentum over the past few years, however these have not arisen without great efforts by Indigenous activists and groups, both domestically and internationally. International Indigenous advocacy efforts bring awareness to treaty abuses, human rights abuses, legal mistreatment, and the legacy of colonialism that affects Indigenous groups globally in similar ways. One such initiative has been work at the United Nations to address global discrimination against Indigenous peoples worldwide.

International Organization: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)

In the 1980s, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) established a Working Group on Indigenous Populations to investigate discrimination of global Indigenous populations. The drafting of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) took nearly ten years. One of the founding principles in this document is the right of self-determination of Indigenous peoples over their traditional lands, natural resources, languages, cultures, and institutions. The UNDRIP, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2007, is a non-binding international instrument that recognizes many indigenous nations globally have suffered, or still suffer, harmful effects of colonization. This includes recognition of ongoing discrimination, marginalization and human rights violations of world indigenous populations and sets out individual and group rights. In 2007, 143 nations voted to adopt UNDRIP, 11 nations abstained from voting, and 4 nations voted against the Declaration: Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. The Assembly of First Nations publically condemned this decision and called for the Canadian government to resign its membership to the UN Human Rights Council. By 2010, the federal government endorsed UNDRIP as “aspirational” but noted it was incompatible with Canadian legal and constitutional structures.

In 2016, Canada removed its objector status and officially pledged to adopt and implement the UNDRIP. Although the details of how UNDRIP will be implemented have yet to be solidified, the Minister of Indigenous Affairs noted that the implementation of UNDRIP will be accomplished through Section 35 of the Constitution. The extent of this decision is yet to be fully understood, but many consider this gesture a step in the right direction towards reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous societies in Canada.

Brenda Gunn, a legal expert on Indigenous rights explains that the association of UNDRIP with existing Constitutional rights is problematic as “a critical distinction between rights protected under section 35(1) and UNDRIP is that the rights recognized in UNDRIP are defined according to Indigenous peoples’ own laws, as a fundamental aspect of self-determination of peoples…to implement UNDRIP, Canadian constitutional law must shift in its approach to defining Indigenous peoples’ rights toward ensuring that the rights are defined according to Indigenous peoples’ legal traditions” (2017, 33-34). Others have supported this sentiment, including NDP Romeo Saganash who introduced a private member’s bill (Bill c-262) that would require the Government of Canada to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with UNDRIP. Paul Joffee, legal representative for the Grand Council of the Crees explains “what UNDRIP does is ask for a while lot of change. Essentially, its’s asking for a decolonization of the entire system” (cited in Labbe 2017).

The incompatibility of Canadian laws and policies, including the Indian Act, with UNDRIP is a large challenge for current and future governments who will need to figure out how to negotiate and adapt Canadian systems if UNDRIP is to be fully implemented. This challenge should consider our overview of the Indian Act from Module 5 and the challenges of moving outside of the system.

A major political challenge to be negotiated in the implementation of UNDRIP relates to Article 32.1 that demand:

As Canada has a large resource extraction industry, this particular clause has been controversial. Currently in Canada, a policy exists that there is a Duty to Consult and Accommodate Indigenous groups. However, the current policy does not stipulate consent is required, simply consultation (and as the Haida Nation v. British Columbia decision indicates, this duty rests with the Crown, not with third parties in industry).

Figure 10-3: “Nothing in the Declaration (UNDRIP) diminishes, extinguishes Indigenous peoples’ rights now or in the future.” Source: https://www.kairoscanada.org/site-c-legal-challenge-undrip-anniversary Permission: This material has been reproduced in accordance with the University of Saskatchewan interpretation of Sec.30.04 of the Copyright Act.

Despite the extensive emphasis on FPIC as a challenge to implementing the UNDRIP, this doctrine is not solely about the FPIC principle. It is worth noting that 16 out of 94 Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission involve adopting the UNDRIP as a framework for reconciliation. This speaks to the importance of UNDRIP principles, including self-determination, land ownership rights, treaty rights, and respect for Indigenous culture, languages and laws, in the process of reconciliation in Canada.

Reconciliation in Canada is not only about changing government policies and structures. Reconciliation is about mending relationships and perspectives between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Reconciliation is best conceived as a process, rather than an objective condition, whereby these relationships must be continuously tended to in a space of mutual respect and consideration.

The TRC mandate was to educate the public through the creation of a historical record of Indian Residential Schools (IRS). The recommendations of the final report were targeted at various sectors (government, industry, education) to take meaningful actions and provide pathways forward for resolving the legacy of the IRS system.

Reconciliation is an ambiguous term, broadly defined as an effort to rebuild and renew a relationship of trust and respect between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Some scholars see reconciliation as a process, rather than a definitive end goal that requires non-Indigenous Canadians to confront and resolve settler colonialism in political, economic, and social structures that influence the relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups.

Decolonization can broadly refer to the dismantling of colonial structures, including the Indian Act, that will help to facilitate reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups. Most scholars believe that some aspect of social transformation is required for decolonization, while some scholars believe that land restitution is an important part of decolonization.

Settler colonialism is a type of colonialism differentiated from immigration. The premise of settler colonialism is that the settler population sought to establish a society and displace Indigenous ways of life, whereby immigration (broadly speaking) does not involve the subjugation of Indigenous peoples or practices.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) has influenced domestic political action in Canada by using international pressure to achieve change. For Canadian politics, the UNDRIP has been referenced as a framework to achieve reconciliation, even if the implementation mechanisms of UNDRIP are yet to be determined.