GOING BEYOND GOOD INTENTIONS
Reconciliation means holding real consultation with First Nations, write Jason Tockman and Sheryl Lightfoot.
As Canada celebrated 150 years, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau affirmed that reconciliation with Indigenous peoples is a top Canadian priority. He acknowledged that festivities in Ottawa took place on Algonquin ancestral land and referred to Canada as part of “Turtle Island.” Those symbolic gestures may reassure many of their country’s benevolence, but a different message was delivered to a group of Indigenous people who erected a teepee on Parliament Hill.
The Indigenous “reoccupation” of Parliament Hill highlighted not only Canada’s relatively recent arrival to a long-inhabited region, it called into question our national discourse of reconciliation. Beyond the pronouncements, symbolism and photo ops, what is Canada doing to advance the cause of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples?
Earlier this year, the federal government announced its goal for a “complete renewal of Canada’s nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples.” A working group of federal ministers is guiding that initiative. The government has acknowledged the need to modify outdated laws like the Indian Act, a fundamentally flawed legal framework based in 19thcentury colonial administration that, in many respects, impedes reconciliation today. Twenty years ago, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Affairs called for the act to be replaced because it is antithetical to notions of freedom, human rights and self-determination and is inconsistent with Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In Canada today, discrimination and governmental inaction remain a reality. A 2016 ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found the federal government guilty of discrimination against First Nations children yet the government has not equalized funding for child and family services. After years of Aboriginal people calling for an inquiry on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, the government finally launched one, but it faces broad criticism for lack of progress.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report highlighted longterm impacts of residential schools on Indigenous peoples including intergenerational trauma, language loss and cultural genocide. Indigenous people in Canada have lower incomes and education levels and higher unemployment, disease rates and infant mortality than non-Indigenous people, and are significantly overrepresented in the justice system. Two-thirds of First Nations communities lived under at least one boil-water advisory from 2004-14. And, suicide rates are four to five times higher than for non-Indigenous people and up to 10 times higher in northern communities where children as young as nine and 10 are ending their lives.
As these statistics highlight, reconciliation is not an Aboriginal problem, it is a Canadian problem. The reconciliation commission issued 94 “calls to action” to achieve a new relationship grounded in the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration articulates both individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples including rights to equality, non-discrimination and selfdetermination. It also recognizes that Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in and consent to decisions that impact them, often articulated as the right of “free, prior and informed consent.”
When we look back in a few years on the federal government working group, will it be seen as an important step in Canada’s reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or will we lament a missed opportunity that once again confirmed for Indigenous peoples that Canadians do not take reconciliation seriously? Two key elements will indicate which path the working group took.
First, is the working group’s review process guided by the UN declaration as the reconciliation commission recommends, or has the government determined that it can subsume the international standards found in the declaration within the Canadian legal framework? The latter approach, which is inconsistent with the intent of global norms, would suggest that the working group’s recommendations will be inadequate.
Second, who is at the table to shape decisions? Are Indigenous nations genuinely included in the review and development of new laws and policies? The UN declaration specifies that countries must do more than merely consult Indigenous peoples. They must consult and co-operate with Indigenous peoples “in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”
Indigenous nations must be able to consistently participate at the highest levels, including in subsequent, shared decision-making with regard to new laws and policies. This is what reconciliation looks like.
Are Indigenous nations genuinely included in the review and development of new laws and policies?