Canada has a long history of colonialism in relation to Aboriginal peoples. This history and its policies of cultural genocide and assimilation have left deep scars on the lives of many Aboriginal people, on Aboriginal communities, as well as on Canadian society, and have deeply damaged the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples. It took a long time for that damage to be done and for the relationship we see to be created, and it will take us a long time to fix it. But the process has already begun.
An important process of healing and reconciling this relationship began in the 1980s with churches’ apologies for their treatment of Aboriginal peoples and disrespect of their cultures. It continued with the findings of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, along with court recognition of the validity of the Survivors’ stories. It culminated in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and the prime minister of Canada’s apology in Parliament in June 2008, along with the apologies of all other parliamentary leaders. This process of healing and reconciliation must continue. The ultimate objective must be to transform our country and restore mutual respect between peoples and nations.
Reconciliation is in the best interests of all of Canada. It is needed not only to resolve the ongoing conflicts between Aboriginal peoples and institutions of the country but also to remove a stain from Canada’s past so that it can maintain its claim to be a leader in the protection of human rights among the nations of the world. Canada’s historical development, as well as the view held strongly by some that the history of this development is accurately portrayed as beneficent raises significant barriers to reconciliation in the twenty-first century.
No Canadian can take pride in this country’s treatment of Aboriginal peoples, and for this reason, all Canadians have a critical role to play in advancing reconciliation in ways that honour and revitalize the nation-to-nation Treaty relationship.
At the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s (TRC) Traditional Knowledge Keepers Forum held in June 2014, Chief Ian Campbell said, “Our history is your history as Canada . . . Until Canada accepts that, . . . this society will never flourish to its full potential.”1
The history and destructive legacy of the residential school system is a powerful reminder that Canada disregarded its own historical roots. Canada’s determination to assimilate Aboriginal peoples, in spite of the early relationship established at first contact and formalized and maintained in Treaties, attests to this fact. As Gerry St. Germain (Métis), then a Canadian senator, said,
There can be no doubt that the founders of Canada somehow lost their moral compass in their relations with the people who occupied and possessed the land. . . . While we cannot change history, we can learn from it and we can use it to shape our common future. . . . This effort is crucial in realizing the vision of creating a compassionate and humanitarian society, the society that our ancestors, the Aboriginal, the French and the English peoples, envisioned so many years ago—our home, Canada.2
Aboriginal peoples have always remembered the original relationship they had with early Canadians. This relationship of mutual support, respect, and assistance was confirmed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaties with the Crown that were negotiated in good faith by their leaders. This memory, confirmed by historical analysis and passed down through Indigenous oral histories, has sustained Aboriginal peoples in their long political struggle to live with dignity as self-determining peoples with their own cultures, laws, and connections to the land.
The destructive impacts of residential schools, the Indian Act, and the Crown’s failure to keep its Treaty promises have damaged the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples. The most significant damage is to the trust that has been broken between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples. This broken trust must be repaired. The vision that led to this breach in trust must be replaced with a new vision for Canada—one that fully embraces Aboriginal peoples’ right to self-determination within, and in partnership with, a viable Canadian sovereignty. If Canadians fail to find this vision, Canada will not resolve long-standing conflicts between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples over Treaty and Aboriginal rights, lands, and resources, or the education, health, and well-being of Aboriginal peoples. Reconciliation will not be achieved, and neither will the hope for reconciliation be sustainable over time. It is not inconceivable that the unrest we see today among young Aboriginal people could grow to become a challenge to the country’s own sense of well-being and its very security.
Reconciliation must become a way of life. It will take many years to repair damaged trust and relationships in Aboriginal communities and between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples. Not only does reconciliation require apologies, reparations, the relearning of Canada’s national history, and public commemoration, but it also needs real social, political, and economic change. Ongoing public education and dialogue are essential to reconciliation. Governments, churches, educational institutions, and Canadians from all walks of life are responsible for taking action on reconciliation in concrete ways, working collaboratively with Aboriginal peoples. Reconciliation begins with each and every one of us.
The Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal youth of our country have told the Commission that they want to know the truth about the history and legacy of residential schools. They want to understand their responsibilities as parties to the same Treaties—in other words, as Treaty people. They want to learn about the rich contributions that Aboriginal peoples have made to this country. They understand that reconciliation involves a conversation not only about residential schools but also about all other aspects of the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples.
As Commissioners, we believe that reconciliation is about respect. This includes both self-respect for Aboriginal people and mutual respect among all Canadians. All young people need to know who they are and from where they come. Aboriginal children and youth, searching for their own identities and places of belonging, need to know and take pride in their Indigenous roots. They need to know the answers to some very basic questions. Who are my people? What is our history? How are we unique? Where do I belong? Where is my homeland? What is my language and how does it connect me to my nation’s spiritual beliefs, cultural practices, and ways of being in the world? They also need to know why things are the way they are today. This requires an understanding of the history of colonization, including the residential school system and how it has affected their families, their communities, their people, and themselves.
Of equal importance, non-Aboriginal children and youth need to comprehend how their own identities and family histories have been shaped by a version of Canadian history that has marginalized Aboriginal peoples’ history and experience. They need to know how notions of European superiority and Aboriginal inferiority have tainted mainstream society’s ideas about, and attitudes towards, Aboriginal peoples in ways that have been profoundly disrespectful and damaging. They too need to understand Canada’s history as a settler society and how assimilation policies have affected Aboriginal peoples. This knowledge and understanding will lay the groundwork for establishing mutually respectful relationships.
In the summer of 1990, at Oka, Québec, the Mohawks of Kanesatake, the Government of Québec, the Québec provincial police, and the Canadian military became embroiled in a violent confrontation over the town’s plan to develop a golf course on Mohawk burial grounds located in a forested area known as “The Pines.” The Mohawks’ claim to that land and demands for the recognition of their traditional territory had gone unheeded for years by the federal government. The resulting confrontation, according to historian J. R. Miller, was “proof of Canada’s failed Indian [land] claims policy.”3 What had begun as a peaceful act of resistance by Mohawk people defending their lands took a violent turn.4 The “Oka crisis,” as it became widely known in the media, led to a seventy-eight-day standoff and involved armed resistance led by militarily trained Mohawk warriors.5 It was an event that shook Canada’s complacency about Aboriginal demands to the core. Shortly after an end to the siege had been negotiated, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney wrote,
The summer’s events must not be allowed to over-shadow the commitment that my government has made to addressing the concerns of aboriginal people. . . . These grievances raise issues that deeply affect all Canadians and therefore must be resolved by all Canadians working together. . . . The government’s agenda responds to the demands of aboriginal peoples and has four parts: resolving land claims; improving the economic and social conditions on reserves; defining a new relationship between aboriginal peoples and governments; and addressing the concerns of Canada’s aboriginal peoples in contemporary Canadian life. Consultation with aboriginal peoples and respect for the fiduciary responsibilities of the Crown are integral parts of the process. The federal government is determined to create a new relationship among aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians based on dignity, trust and respect.6
The Government of Canada subsequently created a royal commission to look into the state of affairs of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. In 1996, the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples provided a glimpse into just how bad things had become, made hundreds of recommendations, and tabled a twenty-year renewal plan that would have rebalanced the political and economic power between Aboriginal peoples and governments. The report’s recommendations focused on five key themes:
First, Aboriginal nations have to be reconstituted.
Second, a process must be established for the assumption of powers by Aboriginal nations.
Third, there must be a fundamental reallocation of lands and resources.
Fourth, Aboriginal people need education and crucial skills for governance and self-reliance.
Finally, economic development must be addressed if the poverty and despondency of lives defined by unemployment and welfare are to change.7
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) put forward a bold and comprehensive vision of reconciliation. The RCAP report observed that if Canada was to thrive in the future, the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown must be transformed. The report concluded that the policy of assimilation was a complete failure and that Canada must look to the historical Treaty relationship to establish a new relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples, based on the principles of mutual recognition, mutual respect, sharing, and mutual responsibility.8
The Royal Commission emphasized that Aboriginal peoples’ right to self-determination is essential to a robust upholding of Canada’s constitutional obligations to Aboriginal peoples and compliance with international human rights law.
It is the hope of Indigenous peoples everywhere, including Aboriginal people in Canada, that international pressure will force countries with Aboriginal populations to assure their cultural survival and recognize their right to have their own land and their own systems of government. . . . We now have an unprecedented opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the past and to set out, both as governments and as peoples, in totally new directions. If Canada has a meaningful role to play on the world stage (and we would like to think that it has) then it must first set its domestic house in order and devise, with the full participation of the federal government, the provinces and the Aboriginal peoples, a national policy of reconciliation and regeneration of which we can all be proud.9
In other words, the RCAP report saw reconciliation as placing a heavy onus on the Government of Canada to change its conduct and to see the validity of the Aboriginal perspective on how the relationship should be in the future.
In the years following the release of the RCAP report, developing a national vision of reconciliation has proved to be challenging. In principle, Aboriginal peoples, governments, and the courts agree that reconciliation is needed. In practice, it has been difficult to create the conditions for reconciliation to flourish.
In 1998, the federal government released “Gathering Strength: Canada’s Aboriginal Action Plan” in response to the RCAP. The action plan focused on four priority areas: renewing the partnership, strengthening Aboriginal governance, developing a new fiscal relationship, and supporting strong communities, people, and economies. The action plan acknowledged the importance of affirming the Treaty relationship (both historic and modern), recognizing the inherent right of self-government, and improving the land claims process. A northern agenda was to guide the development of new constitutional arrangements and governance structures in the new Nunavut government and through land claims and self-government agreements in the Northwest and Yukon Territories.10 “Gathering Strength” included a “Statement of Reconciliation” in which the federal government formally acknowledged and expressed “profound regret” for the historical injustices that Aboriginal peoples had experienced. The statement made particular mention of the sexual and physical abuse at residential schools, for which the government was “deeply sorry.” The action plan also included $350 million to support community-based healing initiatives.11
In 2006, on the tenth anniversary of the release of the RCAP report, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) issued a detailed ten-year report card assessing the action plan’s results. The report card noted that the “Statement of Reconciliation,” the successful negotiation of an agreement-in-principle of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement in 2005, and the establishment of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation indicated that some progress had been made on residential schools issues. However, the AFN concluded that in terms of key socio-economic indicators, the action plan had done little to change the unacceptable status quo. Rather, “any major improvements in individual communities or regions have been led by those communities for those communities.”12
The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, including the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, was an attempt to resolve the thousands of lawsuits brought against the government for cases of historical abuse. Its implementation has also been challenging. Canada and the churches have made apologies to Survivors, their families, and their communities. The courts have produced a body of law on reconciliation in relation to Aboriginal rights, which has established some parameters for discussion and negotiations, but there remains no ongoing national process or entity to guide that discussion. Canadian government actions continue to be unilateral and divisive, and Aboriginal peoples continue to resist such actions. Negotiations on Treaties and land claims agreements continue with a view to reconciling Aboriginal title and rights with Crown sovereignty. However, many cases remain unresolved and progress has been slow.
Under the federal government’s comprehensive land claims policy, 122 claims have been accepted for negotiation, but only 26 land claims agreements or modern-day Treaties have been finalized in the forty-two years since the policy was first introduced in 1973.13 In September 2014, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) issued an interim comprehensive claims policy for discussion as the federal government prepared to once again update its policy.14
In April 2015, Ministerial Special Representative Douglas R. Eyford, who was appointed by the minister of Aboriginal affairs and northern development, the Honourable Bernard Valcourt, to engage in policy discussions with Aboriginal groups, released his report, “A New Direction: Advancing Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.” He found that
[d]espite the Court’s preference that reconciliation be pursued through good faith negotiations, litigation continues to dominate Aboriginal-Crown relations. Several federal departments or agencies are involved in Aboriginal rights litigation. AANDC alone is a party in 452 proceedings involving section 35(1) rights. . . . The cost of Aboriginal rights litigation is significant. AANDC spent in excess of $100 million for litigation legal services over the past five years . . . Aboriginal rights claims highlight the tremendous inefficiencies of litigation as a dispute resolution tool.15
Eyford observed a general consensus among Aboriginal groups that “reconciliation will become a meaningless concept if the Crown fails to address Aboriginal interests in a generous and timely manner.”16 He concluded that “Over the past six decades, various approaches to reconciliation have been proposed. Many initiatives have been implemented but they have produced uneven results. It has been challenging for the parties to get it right.”17
What is clear to this Commission is that Aboriginal peoples and the Crown have very different and conflicting views on what reconciliation is and how it is best achieved. The Government of Canada appears to believe that reconciliation entails Aboriginal peoples’ accepting the reality and validity of Crown sovereignty and parliamentary supremacy in order to allow the government to get on with business. Aboriginal people, on the other hand, see reconciliation as an opportunity to affirm their own sovereignty and return to the ‘partnership’ ambitions they held after Confederation.
Aboriginal peoples in Canada were not alone in the world when it came to being treated harshly by colonial authorities and settler governments. Historical abuses of Aboriginal peoples and the taking of Indigenous lands and resources throughout the world have been the subject of United Nations (UN) attention for many years. On September 13, 2007, after almost twenty-five years of debate and study, the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As a declaration, it calls upon member states to adopt and maintain its provisions as a set of “minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world.”18
The Commission concurs with the view of S. James Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, who observes,
It is perhaps best to understand the Declaration and the right of self-determination it affirms as instruments of reconciliation. Properly understood, self-determination is an animating force for efforts toward reconciliation—or, perhaps, more accurately, conciliation—with peoples that have suffered oppression at the hands of others. Self-determination requires confronting and reversing the legacies of empire, discrimination, and cultural suffocation. It does not do so to condone vengefulness or spite for past evils, or to foster divisiveness but rather to build a social and political order based on relations of mutual understanding and respect. That is what the right of self-determination of indigenous peoples, and all other peoples, is about.19
Canada, as a member of the United Nations, initially refused to adopt the Declaration. It joined the United States, Australia, and New Zealand in doing so. It is not a coincidence that all these nations have a common history as part of the British Empire. The historical treatment of Aboriginal peoples in these other countries has strong parallels to what happened to Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Specifically, Canada objected to the Declaration’s
provisions dealing with lands, territories and resources; free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto; self-government without recognition of the importance of negotiations; intellectual property; military issues; and the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of Indigenous peoples, member States and third parties.20
Although these four countries eventually endorsed the Declaration, they have all done so conditionally. In 2010, Canada endorsed the Declaration as a “non-legally binding aspirational document.”21 Despite this endorsement, we believe that the provisions and the vision of the Declaration do not currently enjoy government acceptance. However, because Canada has accepted the Declaration, we hold the federal government to its word that it will genuinely aspire to achieve its provisions.
In 2011, Canadian churches and social justice advocacy groups that had campaigned for Canada’s adoption of the Declaration urged the federal government to implement it. However, Canada’s interpretation of the Declaration remained unchanged. On September 22, 2014, at the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) in New York, the United Nations General Assembly adopted an action-oriented “Outcome Document” to guide the implementation of the Declaration. Member states from around the world committed, among other things, to the following:
Taking, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, appropriate measures at the national level, including legislative, policy, and administrative measures, to achieve the ends of the Declaration, and to promote awareness of it among all sectors of society, including members of legislatures, the judiciary and the civil service. . . . [para. 7]. We commit ourselves to cooperating with indigenous peoples, through their own representative institutions, to develop and implement national action plans, strategies or other measures, where relevant, to achieve the ends of the Declaration [para. 8] . . . [and also] encourage the private sector, civil society and academic institutions to take an active role in promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples [para. 30].22
The “Outcome Document” represented an important step forward with regard to implementing the Declaration in practical terms. The development of national action plans, strategies, and other concrete measures will provide the necessary structural and institutional frameworks for ensuring that Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination is realized across the globe.
Canada issued a formal statement at the WCIP, objecting to certain paragraphs of the document related to the principle of obtaining the “free, prior and informed consent” (FPIC) of Indigenous peoples when states are making decisions that will affect their rights or interests, including economic development on their lands.
Free, prior and informed consent, as it is considered in paragraphs 3 and 20 of the WCIP Outcome Document, could be interpreted as providing a veto to Aboriginal groups and in that regard, cannot be reconciled with Canadian law, as it exists. . . . Canada cannot support paragraph 4, in particular, given that Canadian law, recently reaffirmed in a Supreme Court of Canada decision, states the Crown may justify the infringement of an Aboriginal or Treaty right if it meets a stringent test to reconcile Aboriginal rights with a broader public interest.23
In a public statement, Indigenous leaders and their supporters said that Canada’s concerns were unfounded, noting that
the notion that the Declaration could be interpreted as conferring an absolute and unilateral veto power has been repeatedly raised by Canada as a justification for its continued opposition to the Declaration. This claim, however, has no basis either in the UN Declaration or in the wider body of international law. Like standards of accommodation and consent set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, FPIC in international law is applied in proportion to the potential for harm to the rights of Indigenous peoples and to the strength of these rights. The word “veto” does not appear in the UN Declaration. . . . Canada keeps insisting that Indigenous peoples don’t have a say in development on their lands. This position is not consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, decisions by its own courts, or the goal of reconciliation.24
Reflecting on the importance of the Declaration to First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples in Canada, Grand Chief Edward John, Hereditary Chief of the Tl’azt’en Nation in northern British Columbia, explained,
We have struggled for generations for recognition of our rights. We have fought for our survival, dignity and well-being, and the struggle continues. Canada’s denial of First Nations’ land rights falls well short of the minimum standards affirmed by the Declaration and demonstrates a clear failure by Canada to implement its human rights obligations. Prime Minister Harper’s apology for Canada’s role in the Indian Residential Schools acknowledged that the policy of assimilation was wrong and has no place in our country. Yet Canada’s policy of denying Aboriginal title and rights is premised on the same attitude of assimilation. It is time for this attitude and the policies that flow from it to be cast aside. The Declaration calls for the development of new relationships based on recognition and respect for the inherent human rights of Indigenous peoples.25
The TRC considers reconciliation to be an ongoing process of establishing and maintaining respectful relationships at all levels of Canadian society. The Commission therefore believes that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the appropriate framework for reconciliation in twenty-first-century Canada. Studying the Declaration with a view to identifying its impacts on current government laws, policy, and behaviour would enable Canada to develop a holistic vision of reconciliation that embraces all aspects of the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians, and to set the standard for international achievement in its circle of hesitating nations.
Aboriginal peoples’ right to self-determination must be integrated into Canada’s constitutional and legal framework and into its civic institutions in a manner consistent with the principles, norms, and standards of the Declaration. Aboriginal peoples in Canada have Aboriginal and Treaty rights. They have the right to access and revitalize their own laws and governance systems within their own communities and in their dealings with governments. They have a right to protect and revitalize their cultures, languages, and ways of life. They have the right to reparations for historical harms.
In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Tsilhqot’in peoples have Aboriginal title to their lands in northern British Columbia, and “ownership rights similar to those associated with fee simple, including: the right to decide how the land will be used; the right of enjoyment and occupancy of the land; the right to possess the land; the right to the economic benefits of the land; and the right to pro-actively use and manage the land.”26 The court said, “Governments and individuals proposing to use or exploit land, whether before or after a declaration of Aboriginal title, can avoid a charge of infringement or failure to adequately consult by obtaining the consent of the interested Aboriginal group.”27
In the face of growing conflicts over lands, resources, and economic development, the scope of reconciliation must extend beyond residential schools to encompass all aspects of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relations and connections to the land. Therefore, in our view, it is essential that all levels of government endorse and implement the Declaration. The Commission urges the federal government to reverse its position and fully endorse the “Outcome Document.” We believe that the federal government must develop a national action plan to implement the Declaration. This would be consistent with the direction provided by the Supreme Court of Canada. More importantly, it would be consistent with the achievement of reconciliation.
43) We call upon federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation.
44) We call upon the Government of Canada to develop a national action plan, strategies, and other concrete measures to achieve the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
European states relied on the Doctrine of Discovery and the concept of terra nullius (lands belonging to no one) to justify empire building and the colonization of Aboriginal peoples and their lands in North America and across the globe. Far from being ancient history with no relevance for reconciliation today, the Doctrine of Discovery underlies the legal basis on which British Crown officials claimed sovereignty over Indigenous peoples and justified the extinguishment of their inherent rights to their territories, lands, and resources.
The Commission concurs with the findings and recommendation of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples with regard to the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius. The RCAP concluded that these concepts “have no legitimate place in characterizing the foundations of this country, or in contemporary policy making, legislation or jurisprudence,”28 and it recommended that Canada acknowledge that such concepts “are factually, legally and morally wrong,” and must no longer form the basis of federal lawmaking, policy development, or the Crown’s legal arguments in court.29
Speaking at the Manitoba National Event in 2010, former day school student, political leader, and educator Sol Sanderson explained the importance of making the connection between the policies and practices of imperialism and colonization and the need for transformative change in Canadian society.
What were the objectives of those empire policies? Assimilation, integration, civilization, Christianization, and liquidation. Who did those policies target? They targeted the destruction of our Indigenous families worldwide. Why? Because that was the foundation of our governing systems. They were the foundations of our institutions, and of our societies of our nations. Now those policies still form the basis of Canadian law today, not just in the Indian Act, [which] outlawed our traditions, our customs, our practices, our values, our language, our culture, our forms of government, our jurisdiction. . . . They say we have constitutionally protected rights in the form of inherent rights, Aboriginal rights, and Treaty rights, but we find ourselves in courts daily defending those rights against the colonial laws of the provinces and the federal government. Now, we can’t allow that to continue.30
From 2010 to 2014, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues undertook a number of studies and reports on the Doctrine of Discovery. During this same period, the Settlement Agreement churches also began to examine the Christian thinking that had justified taking Indigenous lands and removing children from their families and communities. Writing about the Roman Catholic foundations of Aboriginal land claims in Canada, historian Jennifer Reid explains why the doctrine remains relevant today.
Most non-Aboriginal Canadians are aware of the fact that Indigenous peoples commonly regard land rights as culturally and religiously significant. Fewer non-natives, I suspect, would consider their own connection with property in the same light, and fewer still would regard the legal foundation of all land rights in Canada as conspicuously theological. In fact, however, it is. The relationship between law and land in Canada can be traced to a set of fifteenth-century theological assumptions that have found their way into Canadian law. . . . The Doctrine of Discovery was the legal means by which Europeans claimed rights of sovereignty, property, and trade in regions they allegedly discovered during the age of expansion. These claims were made without consultation or engagement of any sort with the resident populations in these territories—the people to whom, by any sensible account, the land actually belonged. The Doctrine of Discovery has been a critical component of historical relationships between Europeans, their descendants, and Indigenous peoples, and it underlies their legal relationships to this day, having smoothly and relatively uncritically transitioned from Roman Catholic to international law.31
In April 2010, the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See (the UN representative from the Roman Catholic Vatican) issued a statement regarding the Doctrine of Discovery at the ninth session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.32 The statement noted that earlier papal bulls regarding territorial expansion and the forced conversion of Indigenous peoples had subsequently been abrogated or annulled by the Roman Catholic Church.
Regarding the question of the doctrine of discovery and the role of the Papal Bull Inter Coetera, the Holy See notes that Inter Coetera, as a source of international law . . . was first of all abrogated by the Treaty of Tordesilles in 1494, and that circumstances have changed so much that to attribute any juridical value to such a document seems completely out of place. . . . In addition, it was also abrogated by other Papal Bulls, for example, Sublimis Deus in 1537, which states, “Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property . . . [S]hould the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.” This view was expanded upon and reinforced in Immensa Pastorum of [Pope] Benedict XIV of 20 December 1741 and a number of other Papal Encyclicals, statements and decrees. If any doubt remains, it is abrogated by Canon 6 of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 which abrogates in general all preceding penal and disciplinary laws. . . . Therefore, for International Law and for the Catholic Church Law, the Bull Inter Coetera is a historic remnant with no juridical, moral or doctrinal value. . . . The fact that juridical systems may employ the “Doctrine of Discovery” as a juridical precedent is now therefore a characteristic of the laws of those states and is independent of the fact that for the Church the document has had no value for centuries. The refutation of this doctrine is therefore now under the competence of national authorities, legislators, lawyers and legal historians.33
For many, this Catholic statement was inadequate. The doctrine’s influence in Western law and its destructive consequences for Indigenous peoples have been well documented by scholars and other experts.34
In 2014, the North American representative to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Grand Chief Edward John, tabled “A Study on the Impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery on Indigenous Peoples, Including Mechanisms, Processes, and Instruments of Redress.” The study concluded,
With regard to land dispossessions, forced conversions of non-Christians, the deprivation of liberty and the enslavement of indigenous peoples, the Holy See reported that an “abrogation process took place over the centuries” to invalidate such nefarious actions. Such papal renunciations do not go far enough. There is a pressing need to decolonize from the debilitating impacts and ongoing legacy of denial by States of indigenous peoples’ inherent sovereignty, laws, and title to the lands, territories, and resources. At the same time, there is a growing movement among faith-based bodies to repudiate the doctrine of discovery.35
In 2010, the Anglican Church of Canada was the first of the Settlement Agreement churches in Canada to reject the Doctrine of Discovery and to “review the Church’s policies and programs with a view to exposing the historical reality and impact of the Doctrine of Discovery and eliminating its presence in its contemporary policies, program, and structures.”36 In 2013, the Anglican Church established a Commission on Discovery, Reconciliation, and Justice, which had three goals:
1. to examine the Anglican Church of Canada’s policies and practices, and revise them as necessary to be consistent with its repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery;
2. to look into the question “what is reconciliation?”; and
3. to review the church’s commitment to addressing long-standing injustices borne by Indigenous peoples in Canada.
The Commission on Discovery, Reconciliation, and Justice will table a final report to the Anglican General Synod in 2016.37
In February 2012, the Executive Committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC) also repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery. The WCC represents over 500 million Christians in more than 110 countries in 345 member churches, including three of the Settlement Agreement churches.38 The wcc statement denounced the Doctrine of Discovery and urged governments to “dismantle the legal structures and policies based on the Doctrine of Discovery . . . [and to] ensure that they conform to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” The statement expressed solidarity with Indigenous peoples and affirmed their rights of self-determination and self-governance. The WCC also asked its member churches to support Indigenous self-determination in spiritual matters and education of all members of their churches.39
The United Church of Canada responded to this call. At its meeting in March 2012, the Executive of the General Council of the United Church “agreed unanimously to disown the Doctrine of Discovery, a historical concept which has been used to rationalize the enslavement and colonization of Indigenous peoples around the world.”40
At the eleventh session of the UN Permanent Forum in May 2012, KAIROS, an inter-church social justice advocacy organization, made a joint statement with the Assembly of First Nations, Chiefs of Ontario, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee), Amnesty International, and the Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) on the Doctrine of Discovery. The statement said that “while churches have begun to repudiate this racist doctrine, States around the world have not.” It recommended that states, in conjunction with Indigenous peoples, undertake legal and policy reform to remove “any remnants of doctrines of superiority, including ‘discovery,’ as a basis for the assumed sovereignty over Indigenous peoples and their lands and resources.”41
In his report to the UN Permanent Forum, Grand Chief Edward John focused on how Canadian courts have dealt with sovereignty issues.
The highest court of Canada has recognized the need for reconciliation of “pre-existing aboriginal sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty.” The Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of “such matters as colonialism, displacement and residential schools,” which demonstrate how “assumed” sovereign powers were abused throughout history. The root cause of such abuse leads back to the Doctrine of Discovery and other related fictitious constructs which must therefore be addressed.42
At the thirteenth session of the UN Permanent Forum in May 2014, Haudenosaunee Faith Keeper Oren Lyons spoke about the principles of good governance as they relate to the United Nations Declaration.
We recognize the Doctrine of Discovery and its long-term effects on our peoples led to the atrocities we faced in residential and boarding schools, both in Canada and the U.S. . . . the Doctrine of Discovery has been invoked as a justification for the ongoing exploitation of our lands, territories, and resources and directly violates Article 7 paragraph 2 of the UNDRIP [the Declaration].43
The Doctrine of Discovery and the related concept of terra nullius underpin the requirement for Aboriginal peoples to prove their pre-existing occupation of the land in court cases in order to avoid having their land and resource rights extinguished in contemporary Treaty and land claims processes. Such a requirement does not conform to international law or contribute to reconciliation. Such concepts are a current manifestation of historical wrongs and should be formally repudiated by all levels of Canadian government.
Our intention in so concluding is to highlight that there is an important distinction to be drawn between the Doctrine of Discovery and its related concepts and the several inherently unjust policies, laws, and principles to which they have given rise over the years. It would not be enough to repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery, for example, while still maintaining the requirement for Aboriginal people to prove the validity of their existence and territoriality. We are not suggesting that the repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery necessarily gives rise to the invalidation of Crown sovereignty. The Commission accepts that there are other means to establish the validity of Crown sovereignty without undermining the important principle established in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which is that the sovereignty of the Crown requires that it recognize and deal with Aboriginal title in order to become perfected. It must not be forgotten that the terms of the Royal Proclamation were explained to, and accepted by, Indigenous leaders during the negotiation of the Treaty of Niagara of 1764.
It is important for all Canadians to understand that without Treaties, Canada would have no legitimacy as a nation. Treaties between Indigenous nations and the Crown established the legal and constitutional foundation of this country. Historian J. R. Miller has concluded,
Treaties were, are, and always will be an important part of Canadian life. Binding agreements between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples have played a central role in Native-newcomer relations since contact, and are still a significant public policy issue now. Non-Native Canadians might not universally recognize their significance, but treaties will continue to play an important role in Canada for the foreseeable future. . . .
The longer narrative of treaty-making is useful as a means to understand how the Native-newcomer relationship has changed since the early seventeenth century. It also permits an appreciation of how indigenous populations have responded to the challenges treaty-making created. Moreover, in the early twenty-first century, this shifting, multi-faceted treaty-making process continues. Treaty-making in Canada has a future as well as a past and present.44
Elder Fred Kelly has emphasized that Treaty making and Aboriginal peoples’ ways of resolving conflict must be central to reconciliation.
There are those who believe that a generic reconciliation process is a Western-based concept to be imposed on the Aboriginal peoples without regard to their own traditional practices of restoring personal and collective peace and harmony. We must therefore insist that the Aboriginal peoples have meaningful participation in the design, administration, and evaluation of the reconciliation process so that it is based on their local culture and language. If reconciliation is to be real and meaningful in Canada, it must embrace the inherent right of self-determination through self-government envisioned in the treaties. . . .
Where government refuses to implement Aboriginal rights and the original spirit and intent of the treaties, the citizens of Canada must take direct action to forcefully persuade its leadership. Treaties and memoranda of agreement are simply the stage-setting mechanisms for reconciliation. There must be action . . . [A]ll Canadians have treaty rights. . . . It is upon these rights and obligations that our relationship is founded.45
If Canada’s past is a cautionary tale about what not to do, it also holds a more constructive history lesson for the future. The Treaties are a model for how Canadians, as diverse peoples, can live respectfully and peacefully together on these lands we now share.
The history of Treaty making in Canada is contentious. Aboriginal peoples and the Crown have interpreted the spirit and intent of the Treaties quite differently. Generally, government officials have viewed the Treaties as legal mechanisms by which Aboriginal peoples ceded and surrendered their lands to the Crown. In contrast, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples understand Treaties as a sacred obligation that commits both parties to maintaining respectful relationships and sharing lands and resources equitably.
Indigenous peoples have kept the history and ongoing relevance of the Treaties alive in their own oral histories and legal traditions. Without their perspectives on the history of Treaty making, Canadians know only one side of this country’s history. This story cannot simply be told as the story of how Crown officials unilaterally imposed Treaties on Aboriginal peoples; they were also active participants in Treaty negotiations.46 The history and interpretation of Treaties and the Aboriginal–Crown relationship as told by Indigenous peoples enrich and inform our understanding of why we are all Treaty people.47 This is evident, for example, in the story of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and its relationship to the Treaty of Niagara of 1764. The Royal Proclamation, which was issued by colonial officials, tells only half this story.
On October 7, 1763, King George III issued this Royal Proclamation by which the British Crown first recognized the legal and constitutional rights of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. In the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the British declared that all lands west of the established colonies belonged to Aboriginal peoples and that the Crown could legally acquire these lands only by negotiating Treaties.
At a time when Aboriginal peoples still held considerable power and conflicts with settlers were increasing, British officials sought to establish a distinct geographical area that would remain under the jurisdiction of Indigenous nations until Treaties were negotiated.
Anishinaabe legal scholar John Borrows notes that the Royal Proclamation can be fully understood only in relation to the Treaty of Niagara, in which the terms of the proclamation were ratified by Indigenous nations in 1764. As Borrows explains, the Indigenous leaders who negotiated the Treaty of Niagara with the Crown did so with the understanding that they would remain free and self-determining peoples.
The Proclamation uncomfortably straddled the contradictory aspirations of the Crown and First Nations when its wording recognized Aboriginal rights to land by outlining a policy that was designed to extinguish these rights. . . . The different objectives that First Nations and the Crown had in the formulation of the principles surrounding the Proclamation is the reason for the different visions embedded within its text. Britain was attempting to secure territory and jurisdiction through the Proclamation, while the First Nations were concerned with preserving their lands and sovereignty.48
The Royal Proclamation was ratified by over 2,000 Indigenous leaders who had gathered at Niagara in the summer of 1764 to make a Treaty with the Crown.49 The Treaty negotiations, like earlier Treaties of trade and those of peace and friendship, were conducted in accordance with Indigenous law and diplomatic protocol. John Borrows presents evidence that Aboriginal peoples, some fifty-four years after the Treaty of Niagara was negotiated and ratified, still remembered the promises that were made by the Crown. In 1818, a Crown representative, Captain Thomas G. Anderson, gave the following account of a meeting between Anishinaabe peoples and the Crown at Drummond Island in Lake Huron.
The Chiefs did decamp, laying down a broad Wampum Belt, made in 1764. . . . Orcata [an Anishinaabe] speaker . . . holding the Belt of 1764 in his hand . . . said: Father, this my ancestors received from our Father, Sir. W. Johnson. You sent word to all your red children to assemble at the crooked place (Niagara). They heard your voice—obeyed the message—and the next summer met you at the place. You then laid this belt on a mat, and said—‘Children, you must all touch this Belt of Peace. I touch it myself, that we may all be brethren united, and hope our friendship will never cease. I will call you my children; will send warmth (presents) to your country; and your families shall never be in want. Look towards the rising sun. My Nation is as brilliant as it is, and its word cannot be violated.’ Father, your words were true—all you promised came to pass. On giving us a Belt of Peace, you said—‘If you should ever require my assistance, send this Belt, and my hand will be immediately stretched forth to assist you.’ Here the speaker laid down the Belt.50
Over the years, Indigenous leaders involved in Treaty negotiations not only used wampum belts to recount the Treaty of Niagara but also presented original copies of the Royal Proclamation to government officials. In 1847, a colonial official reported,
The subsequent proclamation of His Majesty George Third, issued in 1763, furnished them with a fresh guarantee for the possession of their hunting grounds and the protection of the crown. This document the Indians look upon as their charter. They have preserved a copy of it to the present time, and have referred to it on several occasions in the representations to government.51
On October 7, 2013, Canada marked the 250th anniversary of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The governor general of Canada, His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, spoke about the proclamation’s importance.
This extraordinary document is part of the legal foundation of Canada. It is enshrined in the Constitution Act of 1982, and it sets out a framework of values or principles that have given us a navigational map over the course of the past two-and-a-half centuries. . . . Its guiding principles—of peace, fairness and respect—established the tradition of treaty-making, laid the basis for the recognition of First Nations rights, and defined the relationship between First Nations peoples and the Crown. . . . All history reverberates through the ages, but the Royal Proclamation is uniquely alive in the present-day. Not only is it a living constitutional document, its principles are of great relevance to our situation today, in 2013, and to our shared future. . . . Without a doubt, we have faced, and are facing challenges, and we have much hard work to do on the road to reconciliation, but it is a road we must travel together. In modern time, the successful conclusion of comprehensive land claims agreements are an example of the principles of the Royal Proclamation in action.52
Across the country, Indigenous peoples also commemorated the anniversary, calling on Canadians to honour the spirit and intent of the Royal Proclamation. In British Columbia, where very few Treaties were signed, the First Nations Summit leaders issued a statement reminding Canadians that the principles set out in the proclamation were still relevant in present-day Canada. They said,
With Confederation, the First Nations–Crown relationship has regrettably been guided by federal control under the constraints of the Indian Act, not by the principles articulated in the Proclamation. . . . The time has arrived for all Canadians to move into an era of recognition and reconciliation between First Nations and the Crown. Although there is general recognition of Aboriginal title and rights, far too often these rights exist without an effective remedy. There are many solutions that have the potential of moving us to where we need to be. Such solutions include the negotiation of modern-day treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements, consistent with the principles of the Proclamation.53
Across the river from the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa that October, Idle No More supporters gathered in Gatineau, Québec, at the Canadian Museum of Civilization to commemorate the Royal Proclamation as part of a national and international day of action. One of the organizers, Clayton Thomas-Muller, said, “We are using this founding document of this country and its anniversary to usher in a new era of reconciliation of Canada’s shameful colonial history, to turn around centuries of neglect and abuse of our sacred and diverse nations.”54
In Toronto, the focus was on the Gus-Wen-Tah, or Two-Row Wampum Treaty belt, used by the Mohawk in Treaty negotiations with colonial European officials.55 As Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people gathered to mark the historic day, speaker Davyn Calfchild said, “Everyone needs to learn about the Two-Row and the nation-to-nation relationships it represents. It’s not just for Native people; it’s for non-Native people too.” The gathering ended with a march as people carried a replica of the Two-Row Wampum through the streets of the city.56 Those who commemorated the Royal Proclamation and the Two-Row Wampum emphasized that the principles and practices that cemented the Treaty relationship remain applicable today.
The Royal Proclamation of 1763, in conjunction with the Treaty of Niagara of 1764, established the legal and political foundation of Canada and the principles of Treaty making based on mutual recognition and respect. A royal proclamation is also an important symbol. Issued at the highest level, it sends a message to all citizens about the values and principles that define the country. There is a need for a new proclamation that reaffirms the long-standing, but often disregarded, commitments between Canada and Aboriginal peoples. The proclamation would include an official disavowal of the Doctrine of Discovery and commitment to the full implementation of the United Nations Declaration.
45) We call upon the Government of Canada, on behalf of all Canadians, to jointly develop with Aboriginal peoples a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation to be issued by the Crown. The proclamation would build on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaty of Niagara of 1764, and reaffirm the nation-to-nation relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown. The proclamation would include, but not be limited to, the following commitments:
i. Repudiate concepts used to justify European sovereignty over Indigenous lands and peoples such as the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius.
ii. Adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation.
iii. Renew or establish Treaty relationships based on principles of mutual recognition, mutual respect, and shared responsibility for maintaining those relationships into the future.
iv. Reconcile Aboriginal and Crown constitutional and legal orders to ensure that Aboriginal peoples are full partners in Confederation, including the recognition and integration of Indigenous laws and legal traditions in negotiation and implementation processes involving Treaties, land claims, and other constructive agreements.
The principles enunciated in the Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation will serve as the foundation for an action-oriented Covenant of Reconciliation that points the way toward an era of mutual respect and equal opportunity.
A covenant is a pledge or promise made by Treaty partners that establishes how they will conduct themselves as they fulfill their respective Treaty obligations and responsibilities. The historical roots of Indigenous diplomacy and covenant making can be traced back to the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy), the Silver Covenant Chain, and the Two-Row Wampum. This complex Treaty system bound the Haudenosaunee nations together in peace and established the original foundations of the Aboriginal-Crown relationship in eastern North America in the early seventeenth century. Legal scholar Robert A. Williams Jr. notes,
For the Iroquois, the story of the Covenant Chain extended back in time to the period of their first encounters and ensuing treaty relationships with the strange and alien European newcomers to their lands. As a matter of constitutional principle, both the Iroquois and the English were obligated to sustain this story of multicultural unity that had proven to be of such great value to both parties in their struggles for survival in North America. This, of course, accorded precisely with Iroquois constitutional tradition, for as the story of the founding of their own ancient confederacy has told, human solidarity can only be achieved if different peoples imagine the possibilities of linking arms together.57
The Haudenosaunee Constitution, the Great Law of Peace, is the authority for establishing and maintaining Treaty alliances, which are recorded on various wampum belts, including the Gus-Wen-Tah, or Two Row Wampum. Legal scholar John Borrows observes that the Gus-Wen-Tah and the Silver Covenant Chain are integral to the constitutional record of the Haudenosaunee nations.
The belt consists of two rows of purple wampum beads on a white background. Three rows of white beads symbolizing peace, friendship, and respect separate the two purple rows. The two purple rows symbolize two paths or two vessels travelling down the same river. One row symbolizes the Haudenosaunee people with their laws and customs, while the other row symbolizes European law and customs. As nations move together side by side on the river of life, they are to avoid overlapping or interfering with one another. These legal precepts are said to be embedded in subsequent agreements. Another symbol related to the Gus Wen Tah that communicates Haudenosaunee independence is the Silver Covenant Chain. It is to be pure, strong, and untarnished, and bind nations together without causing them to lose their individual characteristics or their independence. Those holding the Covenant Chain are responsible for keeping their relationships bright and preventing them from breaking.58
Metaphorically, the shared responsibility for repairing a damaged relationship is known as ‘polishing the chain’ in order to keep the silver from tarnishing.
The ongoing relevance of the Silver Covenant Chain to the Haudenosaunee and to all Indigenous peoples in Canada was made clear on January 24, 2012, at the Crown–First Nations Gathering. To signify the importance of the long-standing relationship between First Nations and the Crown, then AFN National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo presented a Silver Covenant Chain of Peace and a Friendship Belt to Prime Minister Harper and the governor general of Canada, the Right Honourable David Johnston. He explained,
The Covenant Chain belt represents one of the earliest treaties between the Crown and First Nations peoples and established the foundation for First Nations–Crown relationships for generations thereafter. The belt shows that the Crown is linked by a chain to the First Nations peoples of this land. The three links of the chain represent a covenant of friendship, good minds, and the peace that shall always remain between us. The covenant chain is made of silver symbolizing that the relationship will be polished from time to time to keep it from tarnishing. This was the basis of the Nation to Nation relationship between the British Crown and the First Nations who became their allies in the formation of Canada.59
The long, rich history of Indigenous diplomacy and covenant making has been largely forgotten or misunderstood by Canadians. Williams reminds us that the Indigenous visions of law and peace that prevailed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries across North America have great relevance for today.
[T]here was a time when the West had to listen seriously to these indigenous tribal visions of how different peoples might live together in relationships of trust, solidarity, and respect. . . . In countless treaties, councils, and negotiations, [North] American Indians insisted upon the relevance of the principles contained in tribal traditions such as the Gus-Wen-Tah for ordering the unique and fractious kind of multicultural society that was emerging on the continent. Throughout this period, Europeans secured Indian trade, alliances, and goodwill by adapting themselves to tribal approaches to the problems of achieving law and peace in a multicultural world.
The treaties, councils, and negotiations between Europeans and Indians during the Encounter era reveal a truly unique North American indigenous perspective on the principles and governing paradigms for achieving justice between different peoples. . . . Given the fragmenting nature of our present societal and world order, there are a number of important reasons for trying to develop a better understanding of these . . . tribal visions of law, peace, and justice between different peoples.60
In the Commission’s view, the spiritual, legal, and moral foundations of reconciliation can be found in these early Treaties and covenants. Canada and the world have much to gain by once again listening seriously—that is, with respect—to Indigenous peoples’ teachings about how to resolve conflicts constructively and make peace among diverse groups and nations.61
Along with governments, the churches have a role to play in covenant making. At the TRC’s Manitoba National Event, the church parties to the Settlement Agreement hosted an Interfaith Tent. During the panel “We Are All Treaty People,” leaders from various faiths pointed out that many spiritual traditions—Indigenous, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish—share a belief in sacred covenants between peoples and the Creator God, which for Indigenous peoples is manifested in Treaty covenants.
In the 1980s, several church institutions established the Aboriginal Rights Coalition to support Aboriginal peoples in their efforts to entrench their right to self-determination in the Canadian Constitution.62 Following the repatriation of Canada’s Constitution in 1982, church representatives attended each of the First Ministers’ Conferences held during the mid-1980s as observers under the auspices of the various national Aboriginal organizations. They participated in consultation sessions and met with federal and provincial politicians to support Aboriginal issues.
In February 1987, nine national leaders of denominations and major church organizations issued A New Covenant: Towards the Constitutional Recognition and Protection of Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada, A Pastoral Statement by the Leaders of the Christian Churches on Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution. The New Covenant declared, in part,
As pastoral leaders, we believe that this is an historic movement in the life of this country. This round of constitutional negotiations will affect the lives of some two million Indian, Inuit and Métis people and their descendants for the generations to come. Many of these Aboriginal peoples, whose ancestors have inhabited this country since time immemorial, are members of our churches. . . . It is a time to establish a new covenant with the first peoples and nations of Canada. . . .
The idea of covenant-making has deep spiritual roots, which, in turn, can teach us a great deal about the true purpose and meaning of covenant-making and covenant-keeping among peoples today. . . .
Thus there are moral and spiritual dimensions to making and keeping covenants . . . A new covenant would recognize the rights and responsibilities of Indian, Inuit and Métis to be distinct peoples and cultures. A new covenant should affirm their rights and responsibilities as self-determining nations and societies within Canada. . . .
Today, after the experience of cultural oppression and economic dependency in recent centuries, Aboriginal peoples are struggling to decolonize themselves and regain recognition of their historic rights in Canada. These Aboriginal rights are recognized in both international law and the historic documents of this country. We maintain, however, that the rights of Aboriginal peoples are not simply a legal or political issue, but first and foremost, a moral issue touching the very soul and heart of Canada. . . .
Self-government is the means by which Aboriginal peoples could give concrete expression of themselves as distinct peoples, develop the economic potential of their own lands, and design their own cultural, social and religious institutions to meet the needs of their own people. . . .
Canada could become a living example, before the rest of the world, of a society that is coming to terms with the historic demands for justice affecting the descendants of its original inhabitants. In doing so, we might be able to recover some of the deeper spiritual meaning of covenant-making.63
In 1993, during the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Christian churches, as well as the Aboriginal Rights Coalition, made submissions to the RCAP. Separately and together through the coalition, their presentations reiterated the three key messages contained in the earlier New Covenant pastoral statement: Aboriginal peoples’ right to be distinct peoples, their right to an adequate land base, and their right to self-determination.64 In a ceremony in Winnipeg in 2007, the churches marked the twenty-year anniversary of the New Covenant by renewing and reaffirming their commitment to the covenant made in 1987.65
Together all of the parties to the Settlement Agreement must demonstrate leadership by establishing and implementing a Covenant of Reconciliation. Coupled with a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation, implementation of the UN Declaration, and repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius, the covenant would reaffirm past undertakings and establish inclusive principles for action on reconciliation.
46) We call upon the parties to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement to develop and sign a Covenant of Reconciliation that would identify principles for working collaboratively to advance reconciliation in Canadian society, and that would include, but not be limited to:
i. Reaffirmation of the parties’ commitment to reconciliation.
ii. Repudiation of concepts used to justify European sovereignty over Indigenous lands and peoples, such as the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius, and the reformation of laws, governance structures, and policies within their respective institutions that continue to rely on such concepts.
iii. Full adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation.
iv. Support for the renewal or establishment of Treaty relationships based on principles of mutual recognition, mutual respect, and shared responsibility for maintaining those relationships into the future.
v. Enabling those excluded from the Settlement Agreement to sign onto the Covenant of Reconciliation.
vi. Enabling additional parties to sign onto the Covenant of Reconciliation.
Governments at all levels of Canadian society must also commit to a new framework for reconciliation to guide their relations with Aboriginal peoples.
47) We call upon federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to repudiate concepts used to justify European sovereignty over Indigenous peoples and lands, such as the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius, and to reform those laws, government policies, and litigation strategies that continue to rely on such concepts.
Churches and faith groups also have an important role to play in fostering reconciliation through support for the United Nations Declaration and repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery.
48) We call upon the church parties to the Settlement Agreement, and all other faith groups and interfaith social justice groups in Canada who have not already done so, to formally adopt and comply with the principles, norms, and standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a framework for reconciliation. This would include, but not be limited to, the following commitments:
i. Ensuring that their institutions, policies, programs, and practices comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
ii. Respecting Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination in spiritual matters, including the right to practise, develop, and teach their own spiritual and religious traditions, customs, and ceremonies, consistent with Article 12:1 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
iii. Engaging in ongoing public dialogue and actions to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
iv. Issuing a statement no later than March 31, 2016, from all religious denominations and faith groups, as to how they will implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
49) We call upon all religious denominations and faith groups who have not already done so to repudiate concepts used to justify European sovereignty over Indigenous lands and peoples, such as the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius.