Reconciliation is not voluntary, so the National Reconciliation Council needs to be a commission, not a non-profit

OTTAWA—The federal government historically didn’t even follow the directives of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal regarding equitable funding for First Nations children. This is the history of the department purported to serve Indigenous peoples. Historically, the department of Indian Affairs served its own power base rather than Indigenous peoples. Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Marc Miller has been a breath of fresh air as he demands some essential change in Crown-Indigenous Services. It all sounds good when Miller speaks to Bill C-29. But accountability cannot be built on personality or who currently heads up Indigenous Services. Accountability must be based in law which has enforcement powers. Another way in which Crown-Indigenous Relations has maintained control over Indigenous peoples is the use of the funding agreement to restrict and hobble organizations from doing good work. From one-year funding agreements—which are more like control mechanisms—to demands for hundreds of reports for "accountability," these are the ways in which funding agreements control recipients. The Reconciliation Circle cannot fall victim to funding restrictions. Reconciliation is not a matter of policy open to the whims of senior bureaucrats, nor conflicting priorities of the party in power. Reconciliation is Canada’s moral obligation, a necessary process that must be accountable to citizens, enforceable through public accountability. Consider all the areas of this country which are accountable to principle and law. Because we know that principle must be backed up by law. Pay equity for federally regulated sectors are held to account by commissions with the teeth to demand metrics from organizations to ensure that women receive equitable compensation for their work compared to men, and have equitable opportunities at all levels of the organization. Pay equity is a principle that Canada believes in, so much so that we made it a public accountability issue. Hence, commissions with the power of law to demand public accountability. Human rights are a principle held closely by Canadians and enshrined in law and the Charter. Hence, a Human Rights Commission with the legal basis to investigate complaints of human rights infringements. So why are we not setting the Reconciliation Circle with similar clout? If there is a sense that Canadians don’t support reconciliation as a principle and moral obligation—as important as pay equity—then let’s be clear that this is grave mistake. Why not use this community of workplace as the vehicle to transform Canadian society? When workplaces do the training and capacity development of employees to transform their organizations for real Indigenous inclusion and benefit, those employees take that knowledge home and to their personal networks. This has already been shown in reconciliation workplace leaders such as Mosaic Forests, Canadian Institute for Health Information, Catalyst, and the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. Some other quibbles. The Reconciliation Circle needs to include a few individuals who have significant experience in reconciliation. For transparency, this is not me. But why set up a board with no experience in the very thing it’s supposed to do? As well, there’s the issue of representation: the bill asks for women and LGBTQ2S individuals on the board in five years. That’s insulting and a hint to the internal thinking that this Reconciliation Circle won’t have real impact for years. The Circle needs 50 per cent women and LGBTQ2S representation on day one. The Reconciliation Circle needs to have the teeth of a commission and the authority to demand accountability of the federal government and federally regulated industries. It’s the best bang for the buck that we can do at the federal level. The shifts that occur in these organizations will influence additional sectors, across networks, and will change our country. Anything less is not nearly enough. Rose LeMay is Tlingit from the West Coast and the CEO of the Indigenous Reconciliation Group. She writes twice a month about Indigenous inclusion and reconciliation. In Tlingit worldview, the stories are the knowledge system, sometimes told through myth and sometimes contradicting the myths told by others. But always with at least some truth. The Hill Times

Reconciliation is not voluntary, so the National Reconciliation Council needs to be a commission, not a non-profit

Bill C-29 is finally in discussion. But a National Council of Reconciliation, set up as a non-profit, will lack the teeth to demand accountability.

Canada’s aging crisis and a call for reform in eldercare

As COP29 wraps up, will Canada finally stop funding fossils this fall?

Addressing the threat of antimicrobial resistance

The wisdom of Homer Simpson and Aaron Sorkin

Climate finance should target resilient food systems

Trump’s ‘America First’ plans may undermine global trade

The day Indigenous Peoples took a major step forward in healing

Our day to talk about the elimination of racism

What is so surprising about the demand for ‘change’ in reconciliation?

Reconciliation is an empty word if Indigenous people are left in landfills

Looking forward to National Day of Reconciliation

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

Reconciliation is not voluntary, so the National Reconciliation Council needs to be a commission, not a non-profit

Bill C-29 is finally in discussion. But a National Council of Reconciliation, set up as a non-profit, will lack the teeth to demand accountability.

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter