By Terence Ho | Foundation of HKPLTW
Terence is a Research Coordinator for the Foundation of HKPLTW with interests in history & traditions, social organization & inter-group relations, culture & religion, and economics & politics of Canadian Indigenous People and Visible Minorities. Follow him on Twitter: @hkpltw
Terence is a Research Coordinator for the Foundation of HKPLTW with interests in history & traditions, social organization & inter-group relations, culture & religion, and economics & politics of Canadian Indigenous People and Visible Minorities. Follow him on Twitter: @hkpltw
The most recent cornerstone of First Nation policy is creating the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission. However, Canada is not the nation that has a reconciliation commission.
In comparison to the reconciliation commissions of other countries, the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission is relatively new. According to Jennifer Llewelyn, the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission was inspired by the principles of restorative justice gleaned from reconciliation commissions in other countries. Being created in 2008, it is unique in its focus on survivors of Residential Schools and on a class action settlement for the ongoing legacy of the past harms committed by assimilation policy. While it remains debated on what is needed to make a perfect reconciliation, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission represents a belief in the importance of using non-legalistic mechanisms to promote more harmonious relations between the First Nation peoples and other Canadians.
Given the limited time frame of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada, it is still a significant challenge to address the injustices and problems for residential schools. Undoubtedly, it opens up space for oral testimony without fear of sanction and gathers evidence that can help to build a narrative of truth and fill in the many gaps in the record.
However, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission needs to address more significant structural and systemic issues of past harm rather than just individual crimes and wrongdoings. In Canada’s context, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission must go beyond simply ending impunity of the residential school system and providing justice with apology and compensation. As a study by Cindy Holder and Jeff Corntassel noted, the Canadian Truth Reconciliation Commission fails to address underlying problems and instead requires victims to become reconciled to their loss. These two scholars explain that decolonization and restitution are compulsory elements of reconciliation because they are essential to transform relationships with First Nation communities in the way justice requires. Hence, if the Truth and Reconciliation Commission continues to avoid the more significant systemic and structural issues of the Residential School system, there is little hope that past harms and ongoing legacy of assimilation policies are being held accountable.
Overall, the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission has done great things while coming short in other areas. It quickly becomes a key catalyst for dialogue and promotion about reconciliation. On the other hand, the Truth Reconciliation Commission should seek a different approach — one that would engage with broader structural injustices to ensure that violence does not recur and that the ongoing systemic effects of past wrongs are effectively addressed. By addressing more significant structural and systemic issues, it will result in a more meaningful recognition and redress for past harms committed against First Nation communities and securing amicable relationships with First Nation peoples.
Furthermore, by addressing more significant structural and systematic issues, it would engage more Canadians in the reconciliation process. With more people in the process, the ongoing problems in First Nation communities would be noticed by a larger number of audiences, gathering the national supports that are needed for Aboriginal policies in future.
This is an opinion article; the views expressed by me.
Bibliography
Llewellyn, Jennifer. “Bridging the Gap between Truth and Reconciliation: Restorative Justice and the Indian Residential School Truth and Reconciliation Commission” in M. Brant-Castellano, L. Archibald, M. DeGagne, eds. From Truth to Reconciliation: Transforming the Legacy of Residential Schools (Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2008) 183.
Corntassel, Jeff, and Cindy Holder. “Who’s Sorry Now? Government Apologies, Truth Commissions, and Indigenous Self-Determination in Australia, Canada, Guatemala, and Peru.” Human Rights Review (Piscataway, N.J.), vol. 9, no. 4, 2008, pp. 465-489.
“Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Statement of Apology”. CBC News Canada. 2008. Accessed 13 August 2021. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/06/11/pm-statement.html.
Lutz, Ellen L. “INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND VIOLENT CONFLICT; Preconceptions, Appearances, and Realities.” Cultural Survival Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1, 2005, pp. 13.
Balia, Daryl. “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” Jack Rabin, ed. Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy (Boca Raton, Florida: Taylor & Francis Group, 2005) 295.
“Library and Archives Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission Web Archive.” Government of Canada. Library and Archives Canada, 2019, https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/aboriginal-heritage/Pages/truth-reconciliation-commission-web-archive.aspx. Accessed 18 August 2021.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Canadian Publications From 2013, and Canada. Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015.
James, M. “A Carnival of Truth? Knowledge, Ignorance and the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” The International Journal of Transitional Justice, vol. 6, no. 2, 2012, pp. 182-204.
Foundation of HKPLTW (Canada) 
One thought on “Can Truth and Reconciliation Commission Make Reconciliation a reality?”