A disgraceful past, an uncertain future

At the end of the 360 pages and 94 recommendations of the Truth And Reconciliation Commission report, many Canadians will find themselves in much the same position as they started.

That Canadian governments, for the better part of a century, aimed to forcibly assimilate aboriginal Canadians by undermining their culture is not in dispute. That the system involved an ill-conceived network of residential schools that were often harsh and sometimes brutal is agreed. That Canadians feel shamed by this ugly part of the past and wish to make amends is eminently the case.

The problem remains how to go about it. And that dilemma is likely to persist even as Canadians digest the gritty details of the report, nod their heads and insist that something, surely, must be done.

The gap lies in the very real chasm between what aboriginal Canadians feel is required, and what governments, and non-aboriginals, feel is practically possible and reasonably attainable. It is not a matter of prejudice or lack of concern, but of a fundamental difference in views on what even the best-intentioned process of reconciliation can be expected to undertake and achieve.

It’s the same impasse that has bedeviled relations despite previous attempts to agree on a way forward. Tellingly, the report’s authors go to considerable effort to define just what “reconciliation” means. “The commission defines reconciliation as an ongoing process of establishing and maintaining respectful relationships,” it says, adding “it’s about coming to terms with events of the past in a manner that overcomes conflict and establishes a respectful and healthy relationship among people, going forward.” Yes, but how?

As the commission attests, we’ve been this way before. The 1996 report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples similarly sought to launch “a national process of reconciliation that would have set the country on a bold new path, fundamentally changing the very foundations of Canada’s relationship with Aboriginal peoples.” But the Chrétien government declined to implement most of its recommendations. A subsequent effort by Liberal minister Robert Nault to introduce reforms was denounced by native leaders and shelved by Paul Martin. Similarly, an agreement on aboriginal education between the Harper government and Assembly of First Nations national chief Shawn Atleo crumbled when other chiefs rebelled against it. As these cases illustrate, Ottawa has found it difficult to meet native aspirations because natives themselves remain so sharply divided.

Among Tuesday’s 94 recommendations, some are both reasonable and attainable. These include elimination of the “funding gap” between students in reserve schools and those off reserve, improving native health, reducing the disproportionate number of natives in custody, a commitment to “meaningful consultation” with aboriginal groups over development projects that affect their land and communities, and a real effort to track down records on students who died while in residential schools. Canada’s perplexing reluctance to teach its own history would also benefit from instruction on both the aims and sad results of the residential schools disgrace.

Many others, however, seem destined for the same fate as the 1996 Royal Commission, and for the same reason: a lack of any practical hope of being achieved. The commission, for instance, urges all law students undergo mandatory courses in native treaties, history, rights and laws and “aboriginal-Crown relations,” though only a small minority might ever require such training. It also calls for establishment of “Aboriginal justice systems” and “Indigenous law institutes” to introduce “Indigenous laws and access to justice in accordance with the unique cultures of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.”

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau quickly pledged “unwavering support” for all 94 recommendations, and demanded the government implement them, no further consideration required. How the Liberals would obtain the apology demanded from the Pope, or the vast budget increase needed to meet the report’s many demands (including a monument in every capital and CBC programs for native languages) was left unexplained. Such facetious pandering only continues the political play-acting that has marred the relationship for so long.

If aboriginal leaders expect all these demands — or even most of them — to be quickly fulfilled, they will be disappointed. The past, unfortunately, can’t be reversed, nor can wrongs be retroactively righted. That does not mean Canadians reject the message being sent. At heart, the report reflects a search for respect, a recognition of the past and a commitment to pursue a more equitable relationship in the future. Canadians should have no trouble committing themselves to this. Emphatically so.