Tansi Nîtôtemtik,
This week we will be wrapping up the 2020/2021 ReconciliAction YEG through reflections from each writer. Drawing the short straw and going first is Tyler, whose introduction can be found here.
Kenojuak Ashevak - National Gallery of Canada
Back in September, while doing the introduction posts, I wrote that ‘reconciliation’ seemed to be a malleable concept that could be little more than a feel-good substitute for damaging inaction. After reading and writing on reconciliation and the Calls to Action over this past 8 months, I feel that I am more entrenched in this position – with some caveats.
While I feel less optimistic than ever with the political process and its ability to engage with meaningful reconciliation, I am more optimistic that there exists a legal or constitutional approach that could be a strong avenue towards genuine reconciliation and justice.
The Calls to Action and the Final Report are incredibly direct in their operation and have set out detailed historic reasons why each call has been made. In my opinion, the failing grades throughout this year demonstrate that a political approach to the Calls to Action and reconciliation more broadly is not working. The best time for political leadership to have addressed the Calls to Action would have been immediately following the period in which they were made. Now - five years later, how do the Calls to Action become an increased priority?
Supreme Court of Canada
One of the very first cases that first-year law students read is the Quebec Secession Reference. It is elegantly written and forceful in its effect. In contemplating the legality of Quebec’s potential unilateral departure from the confederation, the Supreme Court explicitly sets out the big picture values which underlie the function of the Canadian constitution: federalism, democracy, the rule of law and the protection of minorities. The Secession reference places an emphasis on approaching these values through a ‘living tree’ approach – one that develops and evolves with time to meet changing needs.
While directly addressing the Calls to Action has been less than successful at this point, I have an optimism that just and practical reconciliatory outcomes are possible - and may exist through Canadian constitutional law and the very principles outlined in the Secession reference. While this may be a naive optimism, a strong federalism structure and constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights already exist and are unique to Canada. A ‘living tree’ interpretation of these existing frameworks could legally recognize the equal existence of Indigenous Nations within a federal structure, and I am of the understanding that this would be the proper and legally consistent interpretation.
Reconciliation isn’t about federal and provincial colonial governments holding power and control over Indigenous people, acquired through historic wrongs, and returning rights when it is politically convenient – it is about building a relationship that can recognize equal party nation-to-nation relationships that pre-existed confederation. While responses to the Calls to Action haven’t been inspiring, keep court watching as the right questions continue to be asked.
A big thanks to the writing team this year and everyone who followed along,
Tyler
