Although much of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) report has focused on the federal government and the churches that ran the residential schools, other institutions, sectors, and organizations in Canadian society must also contribute to reconciliation. Public dialogue and action on reconciliation must extend beyond addressing the history and legacy of the residential schools. If Canada is to thrive in the twenty-first century, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples must also thrive. This requires healthy communities and real economic and social change.
Just as government, church, legal, and public education institutions in this country have been shaped by colonial systems, attitudes, and behaviours, so too have the media, sports organizations, and the business sector. Each has a role in supporting reconciliation moving forward. Non-Aboriginal citizens, those whose families settled here generations ago and those who are more recent newcomers, must also be active participants in the reconciliation process. National reconciliation involves building respectful relationships at the community level.
Since Confederation, as historians Mark Anderson and Carmen Robertson point out, “Colonialism has always thrived in Canada’s press,” and “Canadian newspapers (as well as radio and television] have, over time, played an integral role in shaping the nation’s colonial story.”1 The mainstream press has reinforced and been “supportive of the thinking that underwrote and gave rise to [sometimes coerced] treaties and residential schools.”2 The Commission acknowledges that many media outlets and individual journalists have provided news coverage that includes Aboriginal peoples’ perspectives on a wide range of issues. Yet more must be done.
In many countries where violence and injustice has occurred on a large scale, the media has had the potential to either fuel conflict or facilitate conflict resolution and peace building.3 The media play a critical role in educating the public, and through public scrutiny can hold the state accountable for its actions. In the Canadian context, the media can shape public memory and influence societal attitudes towards reconciliation.4
In their analysis of media coverage of residential schools and the activities of the TRC at the Québec National Event, scholars Rosemary Nagy and Emily Gillespie found that most of the media stories about truth and reconciliation were narrowly framed to focus on individual Survivor’s stories of abuse, forgiveness, and healing. Stories presented by local Kanien’kehaka (Mohawk) people that framed truth and reconciliation more expansively to include the need for societal change and concrete action on Treaties, land rights, and gender equity received far less attention.5
The Commission believes that in the coming years, media outlets and journalists will greatly influence whether or not reconciliation ultimately transforms the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples. To ensure that the colonial press truly becomes a thing of the past in twenty-first-century Canada, the media must engage in its own acts of reconciliation with Aboriginal peoples.
The media has a role to play in ensuring that public information both for and about Aboriginal peoples reflects their cultural diversity and provides fair and non-discriminatory reporting on Aboriginal issues. This is consistent with Article 16:2 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which says, “States shall take effective measures to ensure that State-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity.” Canada’s Broadcasting Act (1991) sets out national broadcasting policy for all Canadian broadcasters with regard to Aboriginal peoples. The policy states the need to,
through its programming and employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations of Canadian men, women, and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society, and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society [S. 3.1.d.iii].
The Act then states a more controversial obligation, that “programming that reflects the aboriginal cultures of Canada should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose” (S.3.1.o).6
A submission to the federal Task Force on Aboriginal Languages and Cultures in 2004 pointed out deficiencies in the Broadcasting Act related to these service provisions for Aboriginal peoples.
The Act did not enshrine Aboriginal language broadcasting as a priority: instead it noted that . . . [S.3.1.d.iii] means that Aboriginal language programming is not recognized nor protected to the same extent as English and French programming . . . [and that] the phrase “as resources become available for the purpose” [S.3.1.o] has become a stumbling block for many producers and programmers, linking the availability of Aboriginal language broadcasting to the political process.7
The report recommended that the Broadcasting Act be revised to address these gaps. As of 2014, these provisions of the Act remain unchanged.
As Canada’s national public broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC/Radio-Canada) is responsible for fulfilling national broadcasting policy. For many years, it has been providing a minimum level of Aboriginal radio and television programming and news in a few specific regions, including some Aboriginal-language programming, especially in northern Canada.
In the Commission’s view, the budget cuts to the CBC over the past decade have significantly reduced and further limited its capacity to provide Aboriginal programming and dedicated news coverage of Aboriginal issues, and to increase the number of Aboriginal people in staff and leadership positions. As of March 31, 2014, Aboriginal people made up 1.6% of the CBC workforce, well below the demographic makeup of Aboriginal people, who represent 4.3% of the total Canadian population.8
The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN), an independent, non-profit broadcaster, in part to make up for the programming and scheduling limitations of CBC/Radio-Canada, has taken a leadership role since the 1990s in providing nationwide programming and news that reflect Aboriginal peoples’ perspectives, concerns, and experiences. The APTN has provided an outlet for Aboriginal journalists, producers, directors, writers, artists, and musicians, and it attracts a wide Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadian and international audience.9 As of 2014, over 75% of APTN employees were Aboriginal, and 28% of its programming was broadcast in various Aboriginal languages.10 In the Commission’s view, the APTN is well positioned to provide media leadership in support of the reconciliation process.
National public and private broadcasters must provide comprehensive and timely information and services to Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian public.
84) We call upon the federal government to restore and increase funding to the CBC/Radio-Canada, to enable Canada’s national public broadcaster to support reconciliation, and be properly reflective of the diverse cultures, languages, and perspectives of Aboriginal peoples, including, but not limited to:
i. Increasing Aboriginal programming, including Aboriginal-language speakers.
ii. Increasing equitable access for Aboriginal peoples to jobs, leadership positions, and professional development opportunities within the organization.
iii. Continuing to provide dedicated news coverage and online public information resources on issues of concern to Aboriginal peoples and all Canadians, including the history and legacy of residential schools and the reconciliation process.
85) We call upon the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, as an independent non-profit broadcaster with programming by, for, and about Aboriginal peoples, to support reconciliation, including but not limited to:
i. Continuing to provide leadership in programming and organizational culture that reflects the diverse cultures, languages, and perspectives of Aboriginal peoples.
ii. Continuing to develop media initiatives that inform and educate the Canadian public, and connect Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians.
In a submission to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) in 1993, the Canadian Association of Journalists noted, “The country’s large newspapers, TV and radio news shows often contain misinformation, sweeping generalizations, and galling stereotypes about Natives and Native affairs. . . . The result is that most Canadians have little real knowledge of the country’s Native peoples, or the issues that affect them.”11 In 1996, the RCAP report noted,
Public opinion polls in the past few years have consistently shown broad sympathy for Aboriginal issues and concerns, but that support is not very deep. More recent events have brought a hardening of attitudes towards Aboriginal issues in many parts of the country. . . . This growing hostility can be traced in large part to recent negative publicity over land claims, Aboriginal hunting and fishing rights, and issues of taxation.12
More recent studies indicate that this historical pattern persists.13 Media coverage of Aboriginal issues remains problematic; social media and online commentary are often inflammatory and racist in nature.
In August 2013, Journalists for Human Rights14 conducted a study of media coverage of Aboriginal issues in Ontario from June 1, 2010, to May 31, 2013. The study found that
1. “the Aboriginal population is widely underrepresented in mainstream media”;
2. “when Aboriginal people choose to protest or ‘make more noise’ the number of stories focused on the community increase[s]”; and
3. “as coverage related to the protests and talks between Aboriginal people and government became more frequent, the proportion of stories with a negative tone correspondingly increased.”15
Media coverage of residential schools was low. From June 1, 2011, to May 31, 2012, media coverage of Aboriginal issues in Ontario accounted for only 0.23% of all news stories, and, of these, only 3% focused on residential schools. From June 1, 2012, to May 31, 2013, news stories on Aboriginal issues amounted to 0.46% of all news stories, and, of these, 3% focused on deaths in residential schools.16
The report included expert opinions on its findings, including those of CBC journalist Duncan McCue, who observed that editorial opinions “are often rooted in century-old stereotypes rather than reality.”17 He pointed out,
Yes, protests often meet the test of whether a story is ‘newsworthy,’ because they’re unusual, dramatic, or involve conflict. Yes, Aboriginal activists, who understand the media’s hunger for drama, also play a role by tailoring protests in ways that guarantee prominent headlines and lead stories. But, does today’s front-page news of some traffic disruption in the name of Aboriginal land rights actually have its roots in a much older narrative—of violent and “uncivilized” Indians who represent a threat to ‘progress’ in Canada? Are attitudes of distrust and fear underlying our decisions to dispatch a crew to the latest Aboriginal blockade? Is there no iconic photo of reconciliation, because no one from the newsrooms believes harmony between Aboriginal peoples and settlers is ‘newsworthy’?18
Historian J. R. Miller has observed that when conflicts between Aboriginal peoples and the state occurred in places like Oka or Ipperwash Park, for example, “politicians, journalists and ordinary citizens understood neither how nor why the crisis of the moment had arisen, much less how its deep historical roots made it resistant to solutions. . . . [This] does not bode well for effective public debate or sensible policy-making.”19
In the Commission’s view, the media’s role and responsibility in the reconciliation process require journalists to be well informed about the history of Aboriginal peoples and the issues that affect their lives. As we have seen, this is not necessarily the case. Studies of media coverage of conflicts involving Aboriginal peoples have borne this out. In the conflict between some of the descendants of members of the Stony Point Reserve and their supporters and the Ontario Provincial Police in Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1995, which resulted in the death of Dudley George, journalism professor John Miller concludes,
Much of the opinion—and there was a lot of it—was based not on the facts of the Ipperwash occupation, but on crude generalizations about First Nations people that fit many of the racist stereotypes that . . . have [been] identified. . . . Accurate, comprehensive coverage can promote understanding and resolution, just as inaccurate, incomplete and myopic coverage can exacerbate stereotypes and prolong confrontations. . . . Reporters are professionally trained to engage in a discipline of verification, a process that is often mistakenly referred to as “objectivity.” But . . . research shows that news is not selected randomly or objectively.20
Miller discusses nine principles of journalism that journalists themselves have identified as essential to their work. Of those, he says,
Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth. . . . Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can—and must—pursue it in a practical sense. . . . Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built—context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. . . .
Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience. Every journalist must have a personal sense of ethics and responsibility—a moral compass. Each of us must be willing, if fairness and accuracy require, to voice differences with our colleagues. . . . This stimulates the intellectual diversity necessary to understand and accurately cover an increasingly diverse society. It is this diversity of minds and voices, not just numbers, that matters.21
With respect to the history and legacy of residential schools, all the major radio and television networks and newspapers covered the events and activities of the Commission. The TRC provided regular information briefings to members of the media who attended the National Events. We discussed earlier how students must not only learn the truth about what happened in the residential schools but also understand the ethical dimensions of this history. So too must journalists.
Many of the reporters who covered the National Events were themselves deeply affected by what they heard from Survivors and their families. Some required the assistance of health-support workers. Some told us in off-the-record conversations that their perspectives on, and understanding of, the impacts of residential schools, and the need for healing and reconciliation, had changed based on their observations and experiences at the National Events.
86) We call upon Canadian journalism programs and media schools to require education for all students on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations.
The Commission heard from Survivors that the opportunity to play sports at residential school made their lives more bearable and gave them a sense of identity, accomplishment, and pride. At the Alberta National Event, Survivor Theodore (Ted) Fontaine placed a bundle of mementoes into the TRC Bentwood Box as expressions of reconciliation. It included a pair of baseball pants that he had worn at residential school. He said,
These woollen baseball pants carry a story of their own . . . These are the baseball pants that I wore in 1957–58, as a fifteen-year-old incarcerated boy at the Fort Alexander Residential School. . . . Little did I know that my mom would treasure and keep them as a memento of her youngest boy. When I leave this land, they won’t have anywhere else to go, so I hope the Bentwood Box keeps them well. . . .
When we were little boys at Fort Alexander Residential School, our only chance to play hockey literally did save our lives. A lot of people here will attest to that. As a young man, playing hockey saved me. . . . And later, playing with the Sagkeeng Old-Timers saved me again. . . . I came back twenty years later, fifteen years later and started playing with an old-timers hockey team in Fort Alexander. . . . In 1983, we ended up winning the first World Cup by an Indigenous team, in Munich, Germany. . . . So I’m including in this bundle a story of the old-timers, a battalion of Anishinaabe hockey players who saved themselves and their friends by winning, not only winning in Munich, Germany, but in three or four other hockey tournaments in Europe. . . . People ask me, “Why don’t you just enjoy life now instead of working so hard on reconciliation and talking about residential schools? What do you expect to achieve?” The answer is “freedom.” I am free.22
Later that same day, journalist Laura Robinson’s expression of reconciliation was a copy of the documentary FrontRunners, which she produced for APTN, about some residential school athletes who had made history. She said,
In 1967, ten teenage First Nations boys, all good students and great runners, ran with the 1967 Pan Am Games torch, from St. Paul, Minnesota, to Winnipeg, a distance of 800 kilometres, which they did successfully. . . . But the young men who delivered that torch to the stadium were turned away at the door. They were not allowed in to watch those games. They were not allowed to run that last 400 metres. One of them told me that he remembered being turned around, [and] put back on the bus to residential school. . . . In 1999, Winnipeg hosted the Pan Am Games again and the organizers realized what had happened. They tracked down the original runners, apologized, and thirty-two years later, as men in their fifties, those runners finished that 400 metres and brought the torch in. . . .
Sport is a place that we speak a universal language—a language of shared passion for moving our bodies through time and space, with strength and skill. This summer [2014], Regina will host the North American Indigenous Games. . . . Let us all hope and commit to reconcile divisiveness, racism, and stereotypes through the world of sport, and support each and every young person attending those games. Because they are the frontrunners of the future.23
Such stories are an indication that the rich history of Aboriginal peoples’ contributions to sport needs to become part of Canadian sport history.
On November 18, 2014, we attended an event hosted by the Law Society of Upper Canada to celebrate the first time that an Aboriginal community—the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation—was to be a host nation for the Pan-Parapan American Games, held in Toronto in July and August 2015. The 1967 torchbearers attended and were honoured in a traditional blanketing ceremony.24
87) We call upon all levels of government, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, sports halls of fame, and other relevant organizations, to provide public education that tells the national story of Aboriginal athletes in history.
88) We call upon all levels of government to take action to ensure long-term Aboriginal athlete development and growth, and continued support for the North American Indigenous Games, including funding to host the games and for provincial and territorial team preparation and travel.
Aboriginal youth today face many barriers to leading active, healthy lives in their communities. They lack opportunities to pursue excellence in sports. There is little access to culturally relevant traditional sports activities that strengthen Aboriginal identity and instill a sense of pride and self-confidence. A lack of resources, sports facilities, and equipment limits their ability to play sports. Racism remains an issue. Aboriginal girls face the extra barrier of gender discrimination.25
Despite the many achievements of individual Indigenous athletes, too many Aboriginal youth remain excluded from community-based sports activities and the pursuit of excellence in sport. The Physical Activity and Sport Act (2003) set out the federal government’s sport policy regarding the full and fair participation of all Canadians in sport, and mandated the minister to “facilitate the participation of under-represented groups in the Canadian sport system” (S.5.m). However, the Act made no specific reference to Aboriginal peoples.26
89) We call upon the federal government to amend the Physical Activity and Sport Act to support reconciliation by ensuring that policies to promote physical activity as a fundamental element of health and well-being, reduce barriers to sports participation, increase the pursuit of excellence in sport, and build capacity in the Canadian sport system, are inclusive of Aboriginal peoples.
In 2005, Sport Canada developed the Aboriginal Peoples’ Participation in Sports Policy, which recognized the unique circumstances of Aboriginal peoples and the role of sport as a vehicle for individual and community health and cultural revitalization. It recognized that Aboriginal peoples have their own culturally diverse traditional knowledge and cultural teachings of play, games, and sports.27 However, no action plan was subsequently developed to implement the policy.28
In 2011, in preparation for revising the 2002 Canadian Sport Policy (CSP), Sport Canada conducted a series of consultations across the country, including a roundtable on “Sport and Aboriginal Peoples.” The roundtable summary report noted,
Participants believe that the needs and issues of Aboriginal Peoples were not adequately reflected in the 2002 CSP. . . . The feeling among the participants was that the previous policy had “no teeth.” . . . The new CSP should acknowledge the unique identity of Aboriginal Peoples, what Aboriginal Peoples can contribute to Canadian sport . . . and make a clear commitment to action. The CSP can support sport for Aboriginal Peoples by reflecting Aboriginal culture and realities, cross-cultural issues between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Peoples, and an understanding of the motivation behind the interest of Aboriginal Peoples in sport. . . . If the new policy doesn’t reflect the needs and issues of Aboriginal sport, then it will not be relevant to the Aboriginal population. . . . It would be important to recognize that the barriers to sport extend beyond a lack of resources and gaps and weaknesses in the sport system. Aboriginal peoples are also affected by issues of identity and historical trauma.29
Despite this roundtable report based on the 2011 consultation, the Commission notes that the subsequent Canadian Sport Policy released in 2012 contains no specific references to Aboriginal peoples.30
90) We call upon the federal government to ensure that national sports policies, programs, and initiatives are inclusive of Aboriginal peoples, including, but not limited to, establishing:
i. In collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, stable funding for, and access to, community sports programs that reflect the diverse cultures and traditional sporting activities of Aboriginal peoples.
ii. An elite athlete development program for Aboriginal athletes.
iii. Programs for coaches, trainers, and sports officials that are culturally relevant for Aboriginal peoples.
iv. Anti-racism awareness and training programs.
The 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia, were held on the traditional territories of the Squamish, Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh, and Lil’wat peoples, and they were an integral part of the event. In the spirit of reconciliation, which aligns easily with the spirit of the games themselves, the four Host First Nations and the Vancouver Olympic Committee formed a partnership to ensure that Indigenous peoples were full participants in the decision-making process—a first in Olympic history. At the opening ceremonies and throughout the games, territorial protocols were respected, and the four Host First Nations and other Indigenous peoples from across the province were a highly visible presence at various Olympic venues.
91) We call upon the officials and host countries of international sporting events such as the Olympics, Pan Am, and Commonwealth games to ensure that Indigenous peoples’ territorial protocols are respected, and local Indigenous communities are engaged in all aspects of planning and participating in such events.
Survivors and their family members told us that their hope for the future lies in reclaiming and regenerating their own cultures, spirituality, laws, and ways of life, which are deeply connected to their homelands. Indigenous nations are already doing this work in their communities, despite the many challenges they face. At the TRC’s Traditional Knowledge Keepers Forum, Elder Dave Courchene said,
As people who have gained this recognition to be Knowledge Keepers for our people, we accept that work in the most humble way. . . . It’s going to be the spirit of our ancestors, the spirit that’s going to help us to reclaim our rightful place in our homeland. We do have a lot of work and there’s certainly a lot of challenges, but with the help of the spirit, we will overcome [them]. . . . We’ve arrived in a time of great change and great opportunity . . . We are the true leaders of our homeland and they cannot take that away from us, and they never will because our Creator put us here. This is our homeland and we have a sacred responsibility to teach all those that have come to our homeland how to be proper human beings because we have all been given original instructions on how to be a human being. We have great responsibilities as people to take care of the Earth, to speak on behalf of Mother Earth. That is our responsibility and that’s the kind of leadership that we must reflect as a people.31
That same day, Chief Ian Campbell of the Squamish Nation said,
I want to acknowledge my grandparents and my mentors for their generosity in teaching us our connections to our lands and our territories. Right now we’re preparing back home for a canoe journey, as our young people are training to represent our people on their journey to Bella Bella in a couple of weeks. . . . A number of families are travelling all up and down the coast to celebrate the resurgence of our identity, of our culture.32
In the face of global warming, growing economic inequities, and conflicts over large-scale economic development projects, there is an emerging consensus that the land that sustains all of us must be protected for future generations. In the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada Tsilhqot’in decision, Aboriginal peoples, corporations, and governments must find new ways to work together. Speaking to local community leaders at a convention of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities in September 2014, Tsilhqot’in Chief Percy Guichon said,
We do live side-by-side and we need to work on a relationship to create or promote a common understanding among all our constituents . . . We need to find the best way forward to consult with each other, regardless of what legal obligations might exist. I mean, that’s just neighbourly, right? . . . We share a lot of common interests in areas like resource development. We need to find ways to work together, to support one another on these difficult topics.33
In 1977, the Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry recommended that a proposed natural gas pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories not be built before Aboriginal land claims in the region were resolved and environmental concerns were addressed. Justice Thomas Berger, who led the inquiry, identified the potentially devastating consequences that building a pipeline through the North would have for Dene and Inuvialuit peoples and for the fragile ecosystems. His observations, made almost forty years ago, foreshadowed similar controversies and conflicts over proposed pipelines still occurring in various regions of Canada as the TRC prepared this final report.34
The political and legal landscape has shifted significantly since Justice Berger issued his report in 1977. As Canada maps its economic future in regions covered by historical Treaties, modern land claims agreements, and unceded Aboriginal title, governments and industry must now recognize that accommodating the rights of Aboriginal peoples is paramount to Canada’s long-term economic sustainability. Governments aim to secure the economic stability and growth necessary to ensuring prosperity for all Canadians.
Corporations invest time and resources in developing large-scale projects that create jobs and aim to produce profits for their shareholders. Although the corporate sector is not a direct party to the negotiation of Treaties and land claims agreements, industry and business play an extremely significant role in how the economic, social, and cultural aspects of reconciliation are addressed, including the extent to which opportunities and benefits are truly shared with Indigenous peoples and the environment of traditional homelands is safeguarded.
The 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples noted that, historically, land and resource development activities, such as hydroelectric dams, mines, and agricultural and urban development, have had many adverse impacts on Aboriginal communities. Communities were not consulted before they were relocated from their vast traditional territories to much smaller, more remote, and more crowded reserves to make way for government and industrial land and resource development projects.
Even when they were not relocated, Aboriginal peoples were economically marginalized in their own homelands when irreversible environmental damage was done in the name of ‘progress.’ All too often, economic development has disrupted Indigenous peoples’ cultural, spiritual, and economic ties to the land, resulting in the devastation of traditional economies and self-sufficiency, community trauma, public welfare dependency, and poor health and socio-political outcomes.35
In the post-RCAP period, the Supreme Court of Canada has developed a body of law on the federal, provincial, and territorial governments’ duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples where land and resource development might infringe on their Aboriginal or Treaty rights.36 The court has ruled that governments can still infringe on Aboriginal rights if it can demonstrate that it is in the broader public interest to do so. In the Delgamuukw case, the court described the nature of that public interest:
[T]he development of agriculture, forestry, mining and hydroelectric power, the general economic development of the interior of British Columbia, protection of the environment or endangered species, the building of infrastructure and the settlement of foreign populations to support those aims, are the kinds of objectives that are consistent with this purpose and, in principle, can justify the infringement of aboriginal title.37
Governments must also demonstrate that any infringement of Aboriginal rights is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary duty towards Aboriginal peoples and upholds the honour of the Crown. To meet these legal obligations, governments in all jurisdictions have developed Aboriginal consultation policies.
Although the court has ruled that the duty to consult rests solely with governments, it has also said that “the Crown may delegate procedural aspects of consultation to industry proponents seeking a particular development.”38 On a practical level, the business risks associated with legal uncertainty created by the duty to consult have motivated industry proponents to negotiate with Aboriginal communities in order to establish a range of mechanisms designed to ensure that Aboriginal peoples benefit directly from economic development projects in their traditional territories. These may include, for example, joint venture business partnerships; impact and benefit agreements; revenue-sharing agreements; and education, training, and job opportunities.39
Between 2012 and 2014, several reports highlighted the fact that Canada is once again facing significant challenges and potential opportunities related to land and resource development. Economic reconciliation will require finding common ground that balances the respective rights, legal interests, and needs of Aboriginal peoples, governments, and industry in the face of climate change and competitive global markets. In addition to the concrete remedial measures required, these reports emphasized that so-called soft skills—establishing trust, engaging communities, resolving conflicts, and building mutually beneficial partnerships—are important to advancing reconciliation.
In 2012, Canada’s Public Policy Forum, a non-profit organization, held a series of six regional dialogues across the country, bringing together Aboriginal leaders; senior federal, provincial, and territorial government officials; and representatives from industry, business, and financial institutions. The dialogues were used to discuss issues, identify best practices, and make recommendations for action on how to ensure that Aboriginal communities benefit from large-scale resource development projects.
The resulting report, “Building Authentic Partnerships: Aboriginal Participation in Major Resource Development Opportunities,” identified five key opportunities for action: (1) developing authentic partnerships among Aboriginal communities, industry, governments, and academic institutions by building trust; (2) developing human capital by removing barriers to education, training, and skills development for Aboriginal entrepreneurs, workers, and leaders; (3) enhancing community control over decision making; (4) promoting entrepreneurship and business development; and (5) increasing financial participation.40 The report concluded,
Natural resource companies are recognizing that their operational success relies on strong, authentic community engagement. Private sector initiatives have already demonstrated positive examples in areas such as revenue sharing, skills training, and business development for Aboriginal communities. Now corporations and governments need to build on these successes to keep up with the rapid pace of development, moving beyond superficial consultations toward genuine engagement. Aboriginal communities must also play a leadership role to help forge these relationships, to develop local and adaptive solutions that will be essential to success.41
In November 2013, after eight months of consultations with representatives from Aboriginal communities, industry, and local and provincial governments in British Columbia and Alberta, Douglas Eyford, Canada’s special representative on West Coast energy infrastructure, issued his report to the prime minister. Entitled “Forging Partnerships, Building Relationships: Aboriginal Canadians and Energy Development,” it focused on Aboriginal–Crown relations in the context of proposed energy infrastructure projects in British Columbia. He noted that although there are many differences among Aboriginal representatives, there was general consensus that development projects must respect constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights, involve Aboriginal communities in decision making and project planning, and mitigate environmental risks.42
Eyford made recommendations for taking action in three key areas: building trust, fostering inclusion, and advancing reconciliation. He noted in particular that “Aboriginal communities view natural resource development as linked to a broader reconciliation agenda.”43 This is consistent with the Commission’s view that meaningful reconciliation cannot be limited to the residential school legacy, but must become the ongoing framework for resolving conflicts and building constructive partnerships with Aboriginal peoples.
In December 2013, a group of current and former high-profile leaders from Aboriginal communities, business, banking, environment organizations, and federal and provincial governments released a report, “Responsible Energy Resource Development in Canada,” which summarizes the results of a year-long dialogue. They concluded that Canada is facing an “energy resource development gridlock.” In their view, the potential economic and social benefits derived from the exploitation of Canada’s rich natural resources must be weighed against the potential risks to Aboriginal communities and their traditional territories, and must also address broader environmental concerns associated with global warming.44 They emphasized that there are significant barriers to reconciliation, including conflicting values, lack of trust, and differing views on how the benefits of resource development should be distributed and adverse effects be mitigated.45
The report identified four principles for moving forward on responsible energy resource development: (1) forging and nurturing constructive relationships, (2) reducing cumulative social and environmental impacts, (3) ensuring the continuity of cultures and traditions, and (4) sharing the benefits fairly.46
Writing about the 2014 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, Kenneth Coates, Canada Research Chair in Regional Innovation at the University of Saskatchewan, and Dwight Newman, law professor and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and International Law at the University of Saskatchewan, concluded that although many challenges and barriers to reconciliation remain,
[w]hat the Supreme Court of Canada has highlighted at a fundamental level is that Aboriginal communities have a right to an equitable place at the table in relation to natural resource development in Canada. Their empowerment through Tsilhqot’in and earlier decisions has the potential to be immensely exciting as a means of further economic development in Aboriginal communities and prosperity for all. . . . [T]he time is now for governments, Aboriginal communities, and resource sector companies to work together to build partnerships for the future. . . . We need to keep building a national consensus that responsible resource development that takes account of sustainability issues and that respects Indigenous communities, contributes positively—very positively—to Canada and its future.47
Internationally, there is a growing awareness in the corporate sector that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an effective framework for industry and business to establish respectful relationships and work collaboratively with Indigenous peoples. In 2013, the United Nations Global Compact published a business guide that sets out practical actions that corporations and businesses can undertake in compliance with the Declaration. It notes,
Business faces both challenges and opportunities when engaging with indigenous peoples. When businesses collaborate with indigenous peoples, they are often able to achieve sustainable economic growth, for example, by optimizing ecosystem services and harnessing local or traditional knowledge. Positive engagement with indigenous peoples can also contribute to the success of resource development initiatives—from granting and maintaining social licenses to actively participating in business ventures as owners, contractors and employees. Failing to respect the rights of indigenous peoples can put businesses at significant legal, financial and reputational risk. . . . Continuing dialogue between business and indigenous peoples can potentially strengthen indigenous peoples’ confidence in partnering with business and building healthy relationships.48
In the Commission’s view, sustainable reconciliation on the land involves realizing the economic potential of Indigenous communities in a fair, just, and equitable manner that respects their right to self-determination. Economic reconciliation involves working in partnership with Indigenous peoples to ensure that lands and resources within their traditional territories are developed in culturally respectful ways that fully recognize Treaty and Aboriginal rights and title.
Establishing constructive, mutually beneficial relationships and partnerships with Indigenous communities will contribute to their economic growth, improve community health and well-being, and ensure environmental sustainability, which will ultimately benefit Indigenous peoples and all Canadians. Unlike with the residential schools of the past, where Aboriginal peoples had no say in the design of the system and no ability to protect their children from intrinsic harms, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples today want to manage their own lives. In terms of the economy, this autonomy means participation on their own terms. They want to be part of the decision-making process. They want their communities to benefit if large-scale economic projects come into their territories. They want to establish and develop their own businesses in ways that are compatible with their identity, cultural values, and worldviews as Indigenous peoples. They want opportunities to work for companies that are proactively addressing systemic racism and inequity. Corporations can demonstrate leadership by using the Declaration as a reconciliation framework.
92) We call upon the corporate sector in Canada to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a reconciliation framework and to apply its principles, norms, and standards to corporate policy and core operational activities involving Indigenous peoples and their lands and resources. This would include, but not be limited to, the following:
i. Commit to meaningful consultation, building respectful relationships, and obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before proceeding with economic development projects.
ii. Ensure that Aboriginal peoples have equitable access to jobs, training, and education opportunities in the corporate sector, and that Aboriginal communities gain long-term sustainable benefits from economic development projects.
iii. Provide education for management and staff on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism.
The Commission believes that reconciliation cannot be left up to governments, the courts, and churches alone. There must also be dialogue and action in communities across the country. Reconciliation must happen across all sectors of Canadian society. Canadians still have much to learn from each other. Past generations of newcomers faced injustices and prejudices similar to those experienced by the residential school students and their families. More recent immigrants have struggled with racism and misconceptions as they come to take their place in the Canadian nation.
Despite the many barriers to reconciliation, this Commission remains cautiously optimistic. At the Alberta National Event in March 2014, TRC Honorary Witness Wab Kinew spoke about the changes that are already happening across this land that give rise to hope. He began by explaining that all day he had been carrying with him
a ceremonial pipe, a sacred pipe, which when you bind the two sides together—the stem and the bowl—it offers us a model of reconciliation, of two forces coming together to be more powerful than they were otherwise. So it’s important for me to come up here before you all and to speak Anishnaabemowin, and a little bit of Lakota, and to carry a pipe because it sends a message. It sends a message to those who designed the residential school system, that you have failed. We were abused. Our languages were assaulted. Our families were harmed, in some cases, irreparably. But we are still here. We are still here. So in honour of my late father, Tobasonakwut, a Survivor of St. Mary’s Residential School in Rat Portage, Ontario, I wanted to say that. I so wish that he could have seen this—the final event of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission—so that he could see how this country has changed. How when he was a child, he was told that he was a savage. He was told that he was nothing. He was assaulted, taken away from his family, taken away from his father’s trapline. To see the change that has happened, where today in Canada, there are tens of thousands of people from all walks of life gathering together to set that right and to stand up for justice for Indigenous peoples.
The world has changed in another way as well; the old dichotomy of white people versus Indians no longer applies. Look around at Canada today. There are the descendants of Europeans. There are the descendants of Indigenous peoples. But there are also the descendants of Arab nations, of Iran, of the Slavic nations, of Africa, of the Caribbean, Southeast Asian, Chinese, and Japanese peoples. The challenge of reconciliation may have begun between Indigenous peoples and Europeans, but now the project of reconciliation will be undertaken by the children of all those nations that I just mentioned. And though the world has changed, and Canada has changed, we still have a long way to go. . . . We are all in this together. Let us commit to removing the political, economic, and social barriers that prevent the full realization of that vision [of reconciliation] on these lands. Let us raise up the residential school Survivors, and their example of courage, grace, and compassion, in whose footsteps we walk towards that brighter day.49
At the community level, where contact between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples is often minimal or marred by distrust and racism, establishing respectful relationships involves learning to be good neighbours. This means being respectful—listening to, and learning from, each other; building understanding; and taking concrete action to improve relationships. At the Victoria Regional Event, intergenerational Survivor Victoria Wells said,
I’ll know that reconciliation is happening in Canadian society when Canadians, wherever they live, are able to say the names of the tribes with which they’re neighbours; they’re able to pronounce names from the community, or of people that they know, and they’re able to say “hello” [and] “goodbye” in the language of their neighbours. . . . That will show me manners. That will show me that they’ve invested in finding out the language of the land [on] which they live . . . because the language comes from the land . . . The language is very organic to where it comes from, and the invitation to you is to learn that, and to be enlightened by that, and to be informed by [our] ways of thinking, and knowing, and seeing, and understanding. So that, to me, is reconciliation.50
Former public school teacher Lynne Phillips cautioned that establishing trust will be one of the major challenges of the reconciliation process.
I really understand the reticence of some First Nations people about wanting to accept offers of friendship and possibilities of interaction. I understand why that is and I hope that in time we will be able to gain trust and some kind ways of interacting with one another that will be mutually beneficial. . . . I think we’re moving. . . . I think civil society, non-governmental organizations, church organizations, Aboriginal organizations are moving in the direction of openness . . . and I think we have a long ways to go.51
In July 2013, at the Community Hearing in Maskwacis (formerly Hobbema), Alberta, at the former site of the Ermineskin Residential School, Professor Roger Epp said that over the years his Cree students had helped him to understand
what it was that a fourth-generation grandson of settler people needed to know in order to live here . . . with a sense of memory and care and obligation. For I too have ancestors buried on Treaty 6 land. . . . I learned from a student from Hobbema that we’re all Treaty people here. . . . A Treaty is a relationship after all, and we live here on the basis of an agreement signed in 1876, 1877—the first time, not very far from where my settler ancestors homesteaded. . . . While it is good for national leaders to make public apologies, the work of reconciliation is not just for governments. Actually, I don’t think they’re very good at it. The work of reconciliation is work for neighbours. . . . I think the words [of the apology] were sincere, but they were not enough. They did not change relationships, not enough.52
We also heard that day from Mayor Bill Elliot, from the nearby city of Wetaskiwin. He explained that prior to the TRC’s Community Hearing, he, along with Grade Ten students and others from Hobbema and Wetaskiwin, had attended a workshop with Survivors. Listening to their residential school experiences helped those who attended to begin to understand how deeply the residential schools had scarred Survivors, their families, and the whole community.
I think it helped the people of Wetaskawin come to an understanding of some of the trials and tribulations that our neighbours to the south have been going through all their lives. . . . We are working on a healing journey between the City of Wetaskiwin and the Cree First Nations. . . . As you come into Wetaskiwin from the south, you will see that our [city] sign is in Cree syllabics as well—that welcomes you. . . . We still have a long way to go. We are taking baby steps in the healing process. But we are working together for better communities, to understand and respect the differences and similarities in our cultures.53
At the Alberta National Event in 2014, Mayor Elliot, who was also inducted as a TRC Honorary Witness, offered an expression of reconciliation.
Our community is trying to learn more about the Survivors and the residential schools. Our schools, churches, and community have made cupcakes and birthday cards for the big birthday party tomorrow. Members of our community have been here for the last two days. . . . They are very, very supportive and they want to learn. We are trying to learn more about and understand the effects of residential schools and our friends from Maskwacis because we want to be good neighbours.54
The Cities of Vancouver, Toronto, Edmonton, and Calgary have also issued proclamations declaring a year of reconciliation. City officials committed to a variety of initiatives, including educating their own managers and staff about residential schools. For example, at the Alberta National Event, Edmonton mayor Don Iveson declared a Year of Reconciliation in the city. He committed to three projects: educating city staff about residential schools, creating more opportunities for Aboriginal cultural events, and developing an Aboriginal youth initiative. One year later, the city brought Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal youth together with city managers to participate in leadership training on reconciliation together. Mike Chow, the director of Aboriginal and multicultural relations for the city, said, “We needed something that would jolt our senior leadership. You can’t force reconciliation or take a powerful idea and hope that a person will change in a year. We’re laying the groundwork with this year of reconciliation, so the journey for people will be ongoing.”55
In 2014, Vancouver went a step further, declaring that it was now a “City of Reconciliation,” and it has established a long-term framework for partnership and relationship building with the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations and urban Aboriginal people.56 At the British Columbia National Event, TRC Honorary Witness Mayor Gregor Robertson said,
We are blessed to have so many different cultures in this place, and all of us who come from afar . . . have been incredibly lucky to be able to come to this place. Many of us come from families, from clans, from cultures that were wiped out, that had to leave. We were forced off our territories, and somehow we’ve managed to make a home here. That’s largely because of those First Nations ancestors who welcomed us . . . who made it possible for refugees, for people of broken cultures all over the world to settle here, to stay here, even though our predecessors and our ancestors turned it right around and terrible things have happened. I think the strength that is in Aboriginal peoples across Canada is something for the world to learn from, something that we can apply to the big decisions that we have to make in our governments, our communities, our cities.
When I hear the strength in Survivors, when I hear the phrase “brave children,” when I think about brave Elders, I think “brave culture”—that bravery and that determination to learn from this past and to make the best decisions about how we look after each other, how we take care of each other, and those that need that help the most. . . . [It is important] that we lift each other up, that we take care of the land and the sea that we inherited for the generations to come.57
At the British Columbia National Event, the Commission, in partnership with the Inspirit Foundation, hosted a Youth Panel, “Be the Change: Young People Healing the Past and Building the Future.” In this cross-cultural dialogue, youth leaders described the intergenerational impacts of human rights violations such as the residential schools, the Holocaust, Canada’s internment of Japanese Canadians during World War Two, and the head tax imposed on Chinese immigrants to Canada. They spoke about community and about turning reconciliation into action. Tsilhqot’in intergenerational Survivor Kim Harvey said,
I encountered many uncomfortable moments trying to explain what happened to my people and why there is so much alcoholism and drug abuse. There is so much focus on all the negative things. . . . No one talked about the residential schools. . . . There are so many horrible stereotypes that our young people face every day. I struggle with issues of family, identity, and community every day. . . . Reconciliation to me comes down to truth, education, and knowledge sharing practices. . . . Reconciliation is about relationship. To reconcile, I really need to understand what happened to you, who you are, and what, as a community member, I can do to make our community better. . . .
Reconciliation is a shared experience. . . . The residential schools were done by an outside party . . . When people ask “why don’t you just get over it?” I find that frustrating because it takes the onus off the shared relationship [as if] somehow this entire country is not involved in the reconciliation process. . . . That, to me, is a disservice to this nation in terms of reconciliation. . . . It’s everyone’s responsibility to educate themselves about what happened. . . . With relationship comes respect. . . . What helps young people, Indigenous or not, is to find your role, have adult allies to help you find that role, fulfill your responsibilities within that role, and then be of service to the community. . . . If we all did that . . . to me that would be reconciliation in action. . . . It’s about finding out about your neighbour.58
Kevin Takahide Lee, an intergenerational Survivor of the internment of Japanese Canadians during World War Two, said,
I acknowledge that we are on Coast Salish lands. It was also on these very lands here at the PNE [Pacific National Exhibition fairgrounds] that my family was held during the war before being sent to the internment camp. It is my parents and grandparents who are Survivors. . . . [They] never talked about what happened in the internment camps . . . even after the Japanese Canadian redress happened . . . [H]earing these stories from our Elders is very rare. . . . When I was four or five, I came here to the PNE as most families do. . . . When it came to going inside the barn here, just two doors away, my grandmother would not come in. That’s because that livestock building was used to hold her and other women and children during the war for months. . . . When I was a child, I couldn’t comprehend this, but as an adult, I understand. . . . This is what it means to me, as an intergenerational Survivor. People who I love and admire were wronged, humiliated, and forgotten, and unjustly imprisoned by the country I . . . call home. . . . [The part of the Japanese redress program that worked best] was the investment in communities and culture . . . [and the establishment of] the Canadian Race Relations Foundation . . . to ensure that this never happened again. . . . Only when “you” and “me” become “us” and “we” can there be any reconciliation.59
Caroline Wong said that as an intergenerational Survivor of the Chinese head tax, which her grandfathers had to pay when they entered Canada from China,
I grew up rejecting the stereotypical [identity] of the Chinese person because I wanted to be as ‘white’ as possible. . . . In terms of reconciliation, my grandmother is a warrior . . . She’s been fighting for head tax redress. In 2006, the federal government offered an apology and compensation for head tax survivors and their spouses, but very few were still living. It was a huge slap in the face for many Survivors like my grandmother and other first-generation Chinese Canadians who suffered the impacts of discrimination. . . . What is the price you can put on loss of life, loss of land, loss of family, and discrimination and abuse. You can’t put a price on these things. . . . Compensation is only part of the answer. . . . Reconciliation is not just an apology but a two-way path of apology and forgiveness. . . . education . . . [and] exposing the truth of what happened and making sure it’s never forgotten. . . . Reconciliation starts with youth and building intercultural understanding . . . I hope this is the start of many other intercultural dialogues. . . . We need to understand about residential schools and also what other cultural groups have experienced. I challenge all of you to ask, “What does it mean to be Canadian?” Or, if you’re from another place, “What is your role in this community?”60
Danny Richmond, an intergenerational Holocaust Survivor, said,
My grandmother and grandfather lived through things in their twenties that I can’t even begin to imagine . . . For my people, this history is still an open wound . . . What can I tell you that will give you understanding of this? . . . It’s always been part of my life. . . . Because the Holocaust was at such a widespread global level . . . who is the perpetrator? Everyday people were implicated . . . and there were systems and nations involved . . . so there’s no one person I can accept an apology from. The German government has apologized. It’s about the reconciliation of trust in humanity that this kind of persecution won’t happen again to the Jews or globally. . . . Reconciliation is about making sure that none of our communities suffer that persecution again . . . For me it’s about guarding our institutions to make sure they aren’t continuing this kind of persecution . . . We’ve had the apology from the government, but how are we checking in to see how we’re doing today? . . . We need to create a National Day of Reconciliation that deals with these past human rights abuses, and educates [people] about what [what happens when we] dehumanize people. Canada was a safe haven for my family, but it’s also a nation with a lot of pain and warts in its background. We shouldn’t be afraid to talk about that and to institutionalize the healing process at a national level.61
For new Canadians, many of whom carry their own traumatic memories of colonial violence, racism, and oppression, finding common ground as Treaty people involves learning about the history of Aboriginal peoples and finding ways to build stronger relationships of solidarity with them. The Commission believes there is an urgent need for more dialogue between Aboriginal peoples and new Canadians.
At the forum “From Remembrance to Reconciliation,” co-sponsored by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, by Colour of Poverty, Colour of Change, and by the Metro Toronto Chinese and South-East Asian Legal Clinic, and attended by the TRC Commissioners, participants reflected on how their own histories had shaped their understanding of violence, oppression, and racism, the stereotypes they had learned about Aboriginal peoples in Canada, and the challenges and opportunities of building alliances together.
Akua Benjamin, who came from the Caribbean, with its history of slavery, said,
How is it that our histories . . . [have] so many similarities in terms of violence? The violence of slavery is the violence of destruction in Aboriginal communities. . . . These are societies that are shaped by violence. . . . My grandmother talked about working in the fields and being beaten . . . [and] my mother carried coal on her head as a child . . . so we have a lot in common. . . . How do we reconcile? How do we have those difficult conversations that say that you are implicated in my struggle? You have privilege that I don’t. You have an education that I was not privy to. . . . This is a safe place for us to really have those difficult conversations.62
Ali Kazimi said,
I came [to Canada] from India thirty years ago. . . . One of the things that became apparent to me right away was that I came [here] with my own baggage of stereotypes [of Aboriginal peoples]. These were defined by what I had seen in Hollywood films and comic books. . . . I spent a lot of time in Toronto going to soup kitchens, hanging out with people, trying to understand what the current reality is of First Nations people in an urban centre like Toronto. It was an incredible learning experience. It really humbled me. It really opened my eyes. . . . I remember having those discussions with people who would challenge me, and those challenges were absolutely essential. . . . That led me to my own question. . . . How do I fit into this landscape?
Many Canadians feel that Canadian identity and cultural identity is somehow defined by this universal humanism. On the flip side, we have Prime Minister Harper who says Canada has no history of colonialism. They do the same thing. They deny colonialism and racism and [attitudes of] white superiority . . . whose legacy we continue to see today. . . . It’s a very toxic legacy. . . . One of the truths about Canada is that it was created as a white man’s country, and this term was used over and over again. . . . Twenty years ago, I became a Canadian citizen and one of the things that wasn’t made clear to me . . . was that when we took that oath [of allegiance] we would become party to the Treaties that were signed. . . . We were given this very uplifting lecture on the rights of Canadian citizenship, but what was excluded was [information] on our responsibility and obligations . . . as now being parties to these Treaties.63
Winnie Ng said,
I was born in Hong Kong and came to Canada in 1968. . . . I landed in Victoria, BC, the oldest Chinatown in the country. . . . It has been a journey for me as a person of colour, as a person of the non-Indigenous communities . . . to learn about the history of this Native land and my own social location and privilege as a member of the newer arrival communities. . . . From the [Chinese] labour of the CPR [Canadian Pacific Railway] to the head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act, . . . the Chinese, along with Indigenous children, were secluded in the education system for so many years . . . There’s been a constant narrative of systemic racism, exclusion, and exploitation. . . . I think [we need to talk about] remembrance, resistance, and reconciliation.64
In preparing to become Canadian citizens, all immigrants to Canada study a booklet called Discover Canada. It explains, “To understand what it means to be Canadian, it is important to know about our three founding peoples—Aboriginal, French and British.” It says the following about Aboriginal peoples:
The ancestors of Aboriginal peoples are believed to have migrated from Asia many thousands of years ago. They were well established here long before explorers from Europe first came to North America. Diverse, vibrant First Nations cultures were rooted in religious beliefs about their relationship to the Creator, the natural environment and each other. Aboriginal and treaty rights are in the Canadian Constitution. Territorial rights were first guaranteed through the Royal Proclamation of 1763 by King George III, and established the basis for negotiating treaties with the newcomers—treaties that were not always fully respected. From the 1800s until the 1980s, the federal government placed many Aboriginal children in residential schools to educate and assimilate them into mainstream Canadian culture. The schools were poorly funded and inflicted hardship on the students; some were physically abused. Aboriginal languages and cultural practices were mostly prohibited. In 2008, Ottawa formally apologized to the former students. In today’s Canada, Aboriginal peoples enjoy renewed pride and confidence, and have made significant achievements in agriculture, the environment, business and the arts.65
The guide explains the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. In describing Canada’s legal system, it states,
Canadian law has several sources, including laws passed by Parliament and the provincial legislatures, English common law, the civil code of France and the unwritten constitution that we have inherited from Great Britain. Together, these secure for Canadians an 800-year-old tradition of ordered liberty, which dates back to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 in England.66
Discover Canada ignores Indigenous peoples as being a source of law for Canada, and says that Canada’s tradition of an “ordered liberty” is due to England, and not at all to Canada’s Aboriginal peoples, who welcomed the European explorers, helped them survive in this climate, guided them throughout the country, and entered into Treaties with them to share their land with the newcomers from Europe.
The guide includes the Oath of Citizenship to the Queen that all new citizens must currently pledge: “In Canada, we profess our loyalty to a person who represents all Canadians and not to a document such as a constitution, a banner such as a flag, or a geopolitical entity such as a country.” The current oath requires new Canadians to pledge as follows: “I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.”
Precisely because “we are all Treaty people,” Canada’s Oath of Citizenship must include a solemn promise to respect Aboriginal and Treaty rights.
93) We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with the national Aboriginal organizations, to revise the information kit for newcomers to Canada and its citizenship test to reflect a more inclusive history of the diverse Aboriginal peoples of Canada, including information about the Treaties and the history of residential schools.
94) We call upon the Government of Canada to replace the Oath of Citizenship with the following:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada including Treaties with Indigenous Peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.
On September 22, 2013, the day after the British Columbia National Event, the Commissioners joined 70,000 people gathered in the pouring rain to participate in a Walk for Reconciliation, organized by Reconciliation Canada, a non-profit organization. If one was looking down Georgia Street in downtown Vancouver, a sea of multi-coloured umbrellas was visible as far as the eye could see. Traditional ceremonies and protocols began the walk. Chiefs in regalia, women wrapped in button blankets and cedar capes, and drumming, dancing, and singing accompanied Survivors, their families, and people from multiple faith traditions and all walks of life, who marched together in solidarity. We walked for Survivors and all that they have done to bring the long-hidden story of residential schools to the country’s attention. We walked to remember the thousands of children who died in residential schools. We walked to honour all Indigenous peoples as they reclaim and restore their identity, equality, and dignity. We walked to stand up for the transformative social change that is so urgently needed in Canada. And we walked for the uplifting solidarity of being united with tens of thousands of others, all joined together in a new community of common purpose.
Residential school Survivor and Gwawaenuk Elder Chief Dr. Robert Joseph, speaking as Reconciliation Canada’s ambassador, has said, “Reconciliation includes anyone with an open heart and an open mind, who is willing to look to the future in a new way. Let us find a way to belong to this time and place together. Our future, and the well-being of all our children, rests with the kind of relationships we build today.”67
In November 2012, Elders from Indigenous nations and many other cultures gathered for two days in Musqueam territory in Vancouver, British Columbia, to talk about how reconciliation can help Canada move forward. In a statement afterwards, they said,
As Canadians, we share a responsibility to look after each other and acknowledge the pain and suffering that our diverse societies have endured—a pain that has been handed down to the next generations. We need to right those wrongs, heal together, and create a new future that honours the unique gifts of our children and grandchildren.
How do we do this? Through sharing our personal stories, legends and traditional teachings, we found that we are interconnected through the same mind and spirit. Our traditional teachings speak to acts such as holding one another up, walking together, balance, healing and unity. Our stories show how these teachings can heal their pain and restore dignity. We discovered that in all of our cultural traditions, there are teachings about reconciliation, forgiveness, unity, healing and balance.
We invite you to search in your own traditions and beliefs, and those of your ancestors, to find these core values that create a peaceful harmonious society and a healthy earth.68
At the TRC Final Event, held in Ottawa, May 31 to June 3, 2015, there were hopeful signs that Canadians were taking up the responsibility to ensure that reconciliation becomes a reality. A “Declaration of Action” from various charities, foundations, and philanthropic organizations was offered to the Commission as an expression of reconciliation and placed in the TRC Bentwood Box. Signatories pledged, among other things,
This is an opportune moment for Canada’s philanthropic community to engage in and demonstrate leadership on reconciliation. We bring with us our networks, our voices, and our resources, along with new ways of thinking and doing our work in such areas as: Inclusion, Culture and Language, Health, Housing, Education, Employment, and Environment.
We are committed to supporting the fulfillment of the vision of Aboriginal peoples, to building a fairer and more just country . . . We will work, each in our own way, and together, towards achieving the goal of reconciliation and, in the end, a much stronger, more inclusive Canada. . . .
We place our Declaration of Action herewith to symbolize that this is concrete and will continue. Our signatures are a call to action inviting others to join in moving forward in an atmosphere of understanding, dignity, and respect towards the shared goal of reconciliation.69
The TRC Final Event began with another Walk for Reconciliation. Once again, thousands came out to demonstrate their support for and express their commitment to reconciliation. John Moses, whose father and aunt attended residential school, said afterward, “It’s good to see so many native people from so many different parts of the country and good to see the non-native supporters and church groups. But I hope it’s not just a come and go. I hope there is some lasting legacy from all this.”70
Reflecting on his vision for meaningful reconciliation in the coming years, Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde writes,
The issue facing all of us now is our shared future. What is required for real reconciliation between First Nations and Canada? I believe that reconciliation is about closing the gap—the gap in understanding between First Nations and Canadians and the gap in the quality of life between us. . . .
Our future belongs to the youth and we are the guardians. We must ensure that they have access to an education that meets the highest standards and provides expertise in modern technologies combined with the wisdom of our ancestors so they walk confidently in both worlds. They will learn their languages and learn about their rights and the importance of self-determination. They will be taught in systems that are fairly funded with the same supports that other students enjoy. . . .
Canadians need education, too. Every citizen should learn our country’s true shared history, from painful, shameful moments such as the residential schools and the Indian Act to uplifting moments such as our original relationship—the promises we made to one another to share and live together in mutual respect and peaceful co-existence. Reconciliation means repairing our relationship by honouring these original promises.
We must restore that original relationship of respect, partnership and sharing in the wealth of this land. . . . We were not meant to be poor in our own homelands. . . .
What will Canada look like if we act on this agenda? We will see justice, respect and healing for residential school survivors; First Nations thriving and enjoying the richness of their traditional territories; elders whispering their languages in the ears of their grandchildren; and the widespread recognition that First Nations rights are human rights, the rights that Canadians champion around the world. That is reconciliation.71
On June 1, 2015, the day before the TRC released its Summary Report and Calls to Action, Member of Parliament Romeo Saganash, who is also a Survivor, spoke in the House of Commons about the importance of seizing the moment to act on reconciliation.
After the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples almost 20 years ago, our common history will provide us with yet another moment to restore harmony among the peoples of this land that we now call Canada. Tomorrow is that moment. Let us pause for a moment tomorrow and reflect on the way forward. History will have given us yet another occasion. Canadians want change. Canadians want us to seize the moment. Change and reconciliation go together.
As a survivor, I can appreciate the fundamental importance of the moment we are about to experience tomorrow. Let us all collectively seize it, and collectively commit to genuine change in our relations with the first peoples of this country. Let us set out to do what 148 years of successive governments have not managed to achieve, and that is reconciliation.
Reconciliation is about healing relationships, building trust, and working out our differences. It is about redress and respect for the rights of all. Reconciliation means a meaningful commitment to change, to honesty, and engaging and re-conceptualizing relationships to create a future of peace, a future of justice, and a future of renewed hope for all of us. I suggest that it is not possible to conceive of reconciliation in the absence of justice. Many segments of Canadian society have been honestly willing to engage in a dialogue to obtain truth, dignity, and above all, reconciliation. . . .
The adoption of the TRC report, important though it is, would not in itself change the everyday lives of women, men and children whose experiences it honours and gives witness to. No. For this, we need the political and constitutional commitment of not only the governments but the support and goodwill of the public, of all Canadians, to create and implement substantial and meaningful changes in co-operation, in partnership, with indigenous peoples themselves. We are all in this together.72
We, too, believe that Canada is at a critical turning point in the nation’s history. The Commission has established guiding principles and a framework for reconciliation. It is now up to Canadians to take action.
The work of the TRC has shown just how difficult the process of truth determination can be. Thousands of Survivors came forward and, in tears and with anger, shared their pain. They showed how humour, perseverance, and resilience got them through the hardest of times, and how life after the schools sometimes just got too hard. They came forward to share their stories, not just to ease their burden but also to try to make things better for their children and their grandchildren.
Reconciliation is going to take hard work. People of all walks of life and at all levels of society will need to be willingly engaged.
Reconciliation calls for personal action. People need to get to know each other. They need to learn how to speak to, and about, each other respectfully. They need to learn how to speak knowledgeably about the history of this country. And they need to ensure that their children learn how to do so as well.
Reconciliation calls for group action. The 2010 Vancouver Olympics Organizing Committee recognized, paid tribute to, and honoured the four Host First Nations at all public events it organized. Clubs, sports teams, artists, musicians, writers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, judges, and politicians need to learn from that example of how to be more inclusive and more respectful, and how to engage more fully in the dialogue about reconciliation.
Reconciliation calls for community action. The City of Vancouver, British Columbia, proclaimed itself the “City of Reconciliation.” The City of Halifax, Nova Scotia, holds an annual parade and procession commemorating the 1761 Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Speeches are delivered and everyone who attends is feasted. The City of Wetaskiwin, Alberta, erected a sign at its outskirts with the city’s name written in Cree syllabics. Other communities can do similar things.
Reconciliation calls for federal, provincial, and territorial government action.
Reconciliation calls for national action.
The way we govern ourselves must change.
Law must change.
Policies and programs must change.
The way we educate our children and ourselves must change.
The way we do business must change.
Thinking must change.
The way we talk to, and about, each other must change.
All Canadians must make a firm and lasting commitment to reconciliation in order to ensure that Canada is a country where our children and grandchildren can thrive.