Our Shared Future: Windows into Canada’s Reconciliation Journey — A Review

There is an abundant and rapidly growing literature-books, professional reports, government studies, academic treatises, and news articles-reporting on the current circumstances of Indigenous peoples in Canada and the historical development which produced those circumstances. Anderson (2001: 1) has characterized the social and economic circumstances of many Indigenous communities as 'abysmal'. Frideres and Gadacz (2001: 90) have also reported very alarming conditions in relation to the socio-economic status of Indigenous people across Canada. Frideres and Gadacz describe four factors; income, labour force participation, occupational status, and education as key indicators of the quality of life a given segment of society. Indigenous Canadians living on reserves rely more on government transfers; earn less employment income; have a lower labour force participation rate than other Canadians; and are largely excluded from the benefits of education. Armstrong (1999: 5) refers to level of schooling, employment rate, income level, and housing as indicators of wellbeing. He concludes that 32 percent of all registered Indigenous people in Canada are below average in all categories. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP 1996: 2) summarizes the contrasts between Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people in Canada: life expectancy is lower; illness is more common; human problems, from family violence to alcohol abuse, are more common; fewer children graduate from high school; far fewer go on to colleges and universities; the homes of Indigenous people are more often flimsy, leaky, and overcrowded; and fewer Indigenous people have jobs. A recent Canadian study examined ten First Nation community's development strategies. A general consensus was found to exist that holds that economic self-sufficiency would only be achieved through the establishment and growth of businesses within their community's (Loizides & Wutunee, 2005, 1). In his study of Aboriginal entrepreneurship in British Columbia McBride also observed the increasing use of entrepreneurship as a means of creating wealth, jobs, lessening the dependency on government funding and to increase control over their future (McBride, 2004). Another recent study found that the costs of moving a business idea from the conceptual stage to reality is six times higher 'on-reserve' than it is 'off-reserve' (Fiscal Realities, 1999, 1). Indigenous leaders have long realized the need to remedy these circumstances. They have recognized the complete and utter failure of the social welfare system that was imposed upon them. And, today, many Indigenous leaders have initiated efforts to break this cycle of dependency. The authors are embarking on a program of research in an effort to understand Indigenous entrepreneurship in Canada and to inform the process.

I am grateful for the financial contributions provided by the Canadian Indigenous of Health Research (CIHR), Institute of Indigenous Peoples Health and Gender and Health, with First Nations Health Authority, the Canadian Nurses Foundation, and the University of Victoria.

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on the health of Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA, as reflected in the growing literature. However, Indigenous...

The advancement of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in Canada has had a significant impact on the approval of energy projects since the introduction of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The legal concepts of consultation, accommodation, and consent have pushed the boundaries of our existing regulatory regimes and challenged the way we think about administrative processes. The move toward the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Canada, including the concept of “free, prior and informed consent,” is certain to further push those boundaries as governments advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. In canvassing current legislative, proposed legislative, and policy developments across Canada — in particular, recent legislative changes in British Columbia — there appear to be different models developing for incorporating UNDRIP into Canadian law. These models range from express requirements in relation to Indigenous consent on major project approvals, to more flexible frameworks that will enable governments to address UNDRIP incrementally over time. Ultimately, many important questions remain with respect to how UNDRIP will impact energy development in Canada.

This article examines energy issues articulated by Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada and analyzes the energy transition as a locus of reconciliation therein. Using content and discourse analysis of policy documents, white papers, and news media articles, we draw attention to reconciliation and energy discourses before and after 2015, the year that marked the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) report and the Paris Agreement on climate change. We find a three-fold expansion of those discourses, which encompass issues of inclusion and exclusion, dependency, and autonomy, as well as colonial representations of Indigenous people, after 2015. We also find that non-Indigenous voices are more prominent in those conversations. We suggest that the prospects of mutual benefits could turn the energy transition into an opportunity to bring together Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada.

IntroductionThe Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRCC) published 94 Calls to Action in 2015 to address long-term, intergenerational effects of the residential school system, highlighting the pervasive impact of colonialism on the wellbeing of Indigenous peoples in Canada. Indeed, research with Indigenous populations in Canada has captured that prior experiences of residential schools contributes to the intergenerational transmission of mental and physical health disparities. Despite these studies, further research is needed that contextualizes the influence of residential schools within broader frameworks that consider Indigenous social determinants of health in Canada. As such, the purpose of the present study was to examine patterns of substance use and mental and physical health among individuals with a history of residential school attendance (RSA) and individuals reporting parent or two-generation (parent and grandparent) RSA.MethodData from the Aboriginal Peoples Survey (2017), involving 10,030 First Nations individuals living off reserve, were analyzed.ResultsSelf-reported mental and physical health scores were significantly lower among those had attended residential schools, whose parents attended residential schools, and whose grandparents attended residential schools, when compared to those who did not. Further, family RSA was associated with increased substance use among participants, though the findings were variable based on sex and specific substance analyzed. Meanwhile, individual and family RSA was not associated with increased likelihood of a mental health diagnosis.DiscussionThese findings provide additional support for how both parental and two-generation family histories of RSA are associated with individual physical and mental health outcomes. Further, these findings articulate the need for the TRCC's Calls to Action to be actually implemented, including community-based approaches that harness the strength of Indigenous people and communities who aim to close the gap in these health disparities for their children and families.

One of the most consistent themes in testimony provided to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) was the common experience of hunger at residential schools. In his statement to the TRC, survivor Andrew Paul spoke of the unrelenting hunger he experienced during his time at Aklavik

RETIRED: A Guide for Health Professionals Working with Aboriginal Peoples: Executive Summary

Many non-Indigenous peoples in settler societies describe themselves as concerned with the legacies of colonialism and wish to become more engaged with that history and with Indigenous peoples. Paradoxically, however, many do not understand what that engagement might entail, how they could do it or whether, indeed, it is their place to do so. In this research, we survey findings from three sets of focus groups with non-Indigenous peoples in Canada conducted over a two-year period and intersecting with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process that has nearly concluded there. The goal was to see what ‘emergent’ discourses of reconciliation are at play in reflective conversations between non-Aboriginal Canadians. Some strong but complex themes arise from this research, in particular a mode of ‘delegation’ and another, of ‘embodiment’. These are expressed in different rhetorical styles and speak to variations in the geography, history and identity of the participants and their communities. A broad but tentative conclusion is that for reconciliation the politics of the local matter. We explore this finding with one eye toward policy innovations and as part of a broad comparative inquiry into non-Indigenous peoples' ideas of engagement and responsibility in settler colonial states.

(1997). Comments on Landau's “The prospect of a harm reduction approach among indigenous people in Canada”. Drug and Alcohol Review: Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 85-90.

Over the last half-century, the rights of Indigenous peoples have been recognized and engraved within international practice and law. Throughout this same period, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has not expressed its readiness, or its willingness, to observe such developing ethical and legal principles. Subsequently, through the hosting of the Olympic Games, the IOC continues to move freely throughout the world and onto Indigenous lands. This paper argues that the IOC has legal and moral obligations—as an international organization with far-reaching powers and stated commitments to social responsibility, ethical principles, and the preservation of human dignity—to uphold international practices and laws concerning universal standards for the survival, dignity, well-being, and rights of Indigenous peoples. If the IOC accepts these responsibilities, it may begin to fulfill truthfully its mandate and start to make meaningful contributions to the advancement of the rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world.

Indigenous peoples in Canada and in the Circumpolar North face a higher disease burden leading to end-stage organ failure and face geographic and systemic barriers to accessing health-care services, including those for end-stage organ failure and organ donation and transplantation (ODT). To address these issues, I present a think tank model used in Saskatchewan, Canada, which focused on ODT and recommended research and policy changes that address inequitable Indigenous access to ODT, most specifically in northern and remote regions. Over the past three years, think tank members, comprised of Indigenous cultural leaders, elders, and persons with lived experience in ODT, and complemented by medical and advocacy exports, have highlighted equity and utility issues as key concerns, and discussed ways in which these issues can be addressed. Recommendations include culturally-safe methods for documenting and tracking Indigenous identity, development of training to address culturally specific needs, and additionalfunding to support Indigenous transplant donors and recipients.

ABSTRACTSince the release of the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission's (2015) report and their 94 Calls to Action, there has been a push to advance truth and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in Canada. Much of the heavy lifting has been done by Indigenous peoples; but to comprehensively redress injustices there is a need for non‐Indigenous support. In two studies with non‐Indigenous Canadians (n = 355; n = 341), we investigated post‐colonial ideologies (historical negation, symbolic exclusion), ally/supporter identity and collective guilt as predictors of support for reconciliation and Indigenous collective action movements, and political tolerance of Indigenous peoples. Consistent with hypotheses, higher post‐colonial ideologies, lower ally/supporter identification and lower collective guilt related to less support and less political tolerance. Collective guilt emerged as a mediator for support for reconciliation and Indigenous collective action (except for symbolic exclusion in Study 1); but it moderated the relations for political tolerance. Collective guilt also moderated relations between symbolic exclusion and ally/supporter identity with support for reconciliation in Study 1. Future directions for advancing understanding of post‐colonial ideologies and possible applied interventions aimed at improving intergroup relations are discussed.

Indigenous people have unique health needs that require culturally appropriate holistic care that addresses physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health. Access to both traditional Indigenous healing practices and Western medicine are needed for all encompassing holistic health. This inquiry addresses actions suggested by the United Nations (UN) and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) with regard to traditional Indigenous medicine and healing and was guided by an Organizational Sponsor and Inquiry Team. The fieldwork for this study took place within Alberta Health Services (AHS), established in 2008 when 12 separate health entities merged to become Canada's first and largest fully integrated provincial health system. Two Elders and a Cultural Helper provided perspectives on cultural protocols surrounding the traditional Indigenous sweat lodge ceremony. Three Indigenous community members provided perspectives on AHS services and holistic health through participation in the traditional Indigenous sweat lodge ceremony. Seven AHS administrative employees provided perspectives on implementation. This study was conducted within an action research framework and the researcher conducted a literature review, interviews, and a focus group to allow for triangulation. Throughout the interviews and focus group, participants consistently emphasized the importance of increasing efforts to expand traditional Indigenous healing practices within AHS, giving rise to the primary study theme: Expanding Traditional Indigenous Healing Practices within AHS. Several subthemes emerged in support of this primary focus, including the following: (1) enhancing cultural competency and safety training among leadership and employees; (2) adhering to tradition and protocol; (3) establishing meaningful partnerships; (4) strengthening organizational facets of program delivery; and (5) need for additional financial, human, and logistical resources. During this time of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in Canada and beyond, health care leaders and providers have an ethical responsibility and important opportunity to help improve the troubling health disparities at hand. This will inevitably require tremendous reflection, humility, courage, and commitment by stakeholders at all levels, as they work to transform health systems that disproportionately disadvantage Indigenous ways of knowing and being while implicitly privileging Eurocentric, biomedical perspectives. This pursuit, despite the barriers that may arise, is a moral, social, and political imperative for all those health care workers who seek to reduce suffering.

Settler-State Apologies to Indigenous Peoples:A Normative Framework and Comparative Assessment Sheryl Lightfoot (bio) DURING THE PAST TWO DECADES, an increasing number of states have issued official apologies to Indigenous peoples. The first wave of state apologies to Indigenous peoples began in 1991 when Canada's assistant deputy minister for Indian affairs offered what may have been the first governmental apology to Indigenous peoples, and the first of three apologies Canada has offered for its century-long Indian Residential Schools program that removed Indigenous children from their homes and forcibly placed them in church-run Residential Schools.1 Shortly thereafter, in 1993, the United States Congress issued an official apology for "the illegal overthrow" of Hawaiian sovereignty in 1893.2 This non–legally binding apology, a joint resolution passed by Congress and signed in a small ceremony by U.S. President Bill Clinton the very same day, acknowledged the overthrow of Hawaiian sovereignty, but it also carefully sidestepped Hawaiian sovereignty claims and did not provide any federal recognition for Native Hawaiians. In 1997 and 1998, the kings of Norway and Sweden each offered formal apologies to the Sámi people for years of widespread discrimination and injustices committed against them, including forced dislocation, resettlement, and assimilation programs.3 Also in 1998, Canada's Indian affairs minister Jane Stewart issued a "Statement of Reconciliation," Canada's second official "apology" to Aboriginal peoples, which was widely criticized by Aboriginal people as insincere and inadequate. Then, in September 2000, at a ceremony marking the 175th anniversary of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), BIA director Kevin Gover gave an apology speech expressing "profound sorrow" for the "historical conduct of this agency."4 In 2008 and 2009, a fresh wave of apologies to Indigenous people washed over the Anglosphere.5 On February 13, 2008, Australia's newly elected Labour prime minister Kevin Rudd opened his first session of Parliament with his government's first official act. With crowds gathered outside and his image broadcast live on television throughout the country, the prime minister rose and delivered an official apology on behalf of the government of Australia to [End Page 15] the Stolen Generations—the Aboriginal children that had been removed from their homes and families under a century-long forced assimilation program. Several months later, on June 11, 2008, the Conservative prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, stood before Parliament in the House of Commons and delivered a new "official statement of apology" that he said was offered to Aboriginal survivors of Canada's Residential School system "on behalf of the government of Canada and all Canadians."6 The next year, the United States Senate passed a resolution7 apologizing for past policies of the U.S. government toward Native peoples, which was highly criticized by Native Americans for its lack of ceremonial presentation since it was tacked on to a defense appropriations bill and quietly signed, without ceremony, by President Barack Obama on December 19, 2009.8 Meanwhile, highly detailed and ceremonial apologies have been made to Māori claimant groups by the New Zealand government, acknowledging all documented violations of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, ongoing since 1992, as standard practice in settling treaty claims. In 2010, the trend of state apologies to Indigenous peoples extended to Latin America. In January 2010, Chile's president Michelle Bachelet apologized to the descendants of a group of Kawesqar people, from Chile's southernmost region. The remains of five Kawesqar, who had been taken captive in 1881 and displayed as curiosities in Europe, were returned to the Kawesqar people for proper burial, accompanied by a formal apology offered by Chile's president. While the apology was only directed at the descendants of the Kawesqar people, Bachelet did acknowledge that wider mistreatment of Indigenous peoples was the result of Chile's past racist attitudes.9 In October of the same year, on the 518th anniversary of Columbus's landing in the Americas, Mauricio Funes, president of El Salvador, offered an apology to the nation's Indigenous peoples for "the persecution, for the extermination of which they were victims for so many years" under a "reigning model of oppression."10 Given the notable recent...