Through the Ottawa International Writers Festival, I recently hosted their “From Truth to Reconciliation” panel with authors Bruce McIvor and Rose LeMay. As you may expect in the nation’s capital, the room was packed with folks seeking an engaging and practical conversation on the principles of reconciliation.
In reviewing their books, I was struck by the disparity between their views on the definition of reconciliation. LeMay, who is from Taku River Tlingit First Nation in northern British Columbia and has worked in government and non-profit sectors for twenty years, has invested in reconciliation as a cultural competence and anti-racism facilitator. To paraphrase LeMay, reconciliation is a responsibility held by non-Indigenous Canadians to understand and rectify inequities experienced by Indigenous people in Canada.
McIvor, who is from Manitoba’s Interlake region and a member of the Manitoba Métis Federation, has litigated and negotiated on behalf of Indigenous Peoples across the nation. Reconciliation is, he writes, “Canada’s attempt to legitimize its ongoing colonization project.”
While LeMay’s work is on the front lines of settler relations, seeking partnerships to achieve better outcomes for Indigenous Peoples, McIvor is challenging the courts and equipping the public with tools to understand Indigenous rights and Canadian law concerning Indigenous Peoples. Both approaches consider the knowledge and acceptance of the history of the Indigenous and non-Indigenous relationship a necessary step. And both of their books outline the changes needed to improve the relationship today.
One writer’s approach may seem dismissive of reconciliation, but it is simply from a different, and vital, angle. The distinction here is that while LeMay’s definition leans heavily on the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, McIvor’s observes the behaviour of the Supreme Court. The first is about finding respect and healing the relationship. The second acknowledges that while Canada recognizes our pre-existing rights, it does so in the context of the legal beliefs asserted through colonization. It’s my understanding that the Supreme Court’s work is to justify the infringement of Canadians’ rights on Indigenous rights, including treaty rights.
There is no correct place to start on a reconciliatory journey, and in my opinion, the fear of doing the wrong thing is one of the biggest obstacles to moving forward. Someone who is following the path laid out by LeMay’s Ally is a Verb may be surprised by McIvor’s definition and wonder if they’ve done something “wrong.”
However, the work you do in your relationships, community, and workplace is meaningful and essential. We need multi-level interventions to restore the economic and political place of Indigenous people. At the same time, we can also recognize that some reconciliatory measures give an impression of progress, though it is not occurring at critical places within law, policy, and governance.
For example, the institution of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) by the federal government serves Canada’s performance of reconciliation. Yes, we should fund and participate in supporting and listening to survivors, and promote healing in the Indigenous-to-non-Indigenous relationship. But, there are two underlying truths that point to a performative character.
- This day was built by and belongs to Phyllis Webstad and the community that drove September 30th to become Orange Shirt Day. The co-opting of this day allows the government to control its narrative, such as deciding which voices are heard and on what topics.
- Canada honours this day while continuing to dedicate significant time and money to oppose numerous crucial rights-based Indigenous cases in court.
Of the 94 Calls to Action (CTAs) that the TRC released in 2015, only 13 have been completed. No progress has been made on health or child welfare, whose calls include systemic overhaul and the full implementation of Jordan’s Principle, and for whose rights infringement Canada owes an estimated $23 Billion in financial remedies. The responses to CTAs in education, language and culture, and justice have resulted in appointments, inquiries, and reviews, rather than direct action.
Action must be taken on the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and Two-Spirit and LGBTQQIA+ People, clean water for First Nations, and unanswered CTAs like support for Indigenous youth groups (66). When struggles for these, and areas unnamed by the TRC, such as Indigenous environmental stewardship and land back, are disconnected from reconciliation, it masks Canada’s failure to honour its founding responsibilities.
Canada was built on and continues to benefit from the genocide and land dispossession of Indigenous Peoples. We can do all of the work as individuals and corporations without achieving the necessary justice and equity for Indigenous Peoples.
So, while you are supporting the economic participation of Indigenous people through contracts, hiring, and full participation, I urge you to make space for conversations about Indigenous rights and radical change. Read McIvor’s Indigenous Rights in One Minute: What You Need to Know to Talk Reconciliation or take RAVEN’s free online course about Indigenous justice in Canada, Home on Native Land.
Actively practising reconciliation is a lot of work. If you don’t have the hours, you can donate to Indigenous-led litigation or Indigenous-led policy and research on self-determination, in addition to the grassroots Indigenous organizations in your area.
Mahsi Cho for your work today and in future.
A regular strategic partner with Spruce, Amy Ede is a mixed heritage Dene woman who works as a marketing and communications strategist and facilitator. For National Indigenous History Month, we asked Amy to reflect on the work of reconciliation.
