2 Chapter 2: The Relationship between Mi’kmaw Identity, Being and Knowing, and Business

The first step of Two-Eyed Critical Sensemaking involves fostering reflexivity using the tools presented in the CRGBA Research toolkit (NWAC 2022). As I did the work to foster reflexivity for this research, I explored intersecting dimensions of my social identity first and continually as I completed my research. The second step of Two-Eyed Critical Sensemaking is to position yourself, as a researcher relative to the community (NWAC, 2022). In my case, I considered the implications of my identity positions as a researcher in intersecting fields of MOS and Aboriginal business studies, and my positionality relative to the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The outcome of the clarifying my responsibility to these professional communities and communities of practice was my decision to foreground Indigenous perspectives of reconciliation in this literature review. I focus on literature that is germinal to the field of Aboriginal-led economic development. This brief history highlights significant political and legal events from the past that continue to serve as touchpoints for Indigenous-led organization studies and therefore the discourse of Canada-Indigenous reconciliation. I also establish a relational connection between myself as a researcher and Indigenous organizations who participated in the formulation of the TRC.

The literature review also addresses two critical aspects of the Critical Sensemaking heuristic. It outlines the changing dynamics of the discourse of Canada-Indigenous Reconciliation, and establishes the formative context of the TRC. Although the language of the discourse has changed over time and may be unfamiliar to those studying in the field of MOS, it is salient understanding the work done by the TRC and the on-going conversations surrounding Canada-Indigenous reconciliation.

Germinal Legal and Political Reference points of Aboriginal Economic Development

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (RCAP, 1996) is a jumping off point for this review. I refer to the RCAP report – a five-volume report produced between 1991 and 1996 – because it was the first of three foundational texts referred to in the mandate statement of the TRC (Canada, 2006). The RCAP report continues to be an important policy reference point in the field of Aboriginal economic development because it punctuates significant political and legal events and discourses from the past that continue to serve as touchpoints for Indigenous-led research today (Graham & Newhouse, 2021; Voyageur, Newhouse & Beavon, 2011).

The TRC also produced historical records. They fulfilled the goal of their mandate “to create as complete an historical record as possible of the IRS system and legacy (Mandate, 2006. p. 2).” The TRC reports (e.g. They Came for the Children, 2012 and What we have learned, 2015), identify significant events, actors, and policies. Their history of Indian Residential Schools starts with the 16^th century imperial context of the relationship. They proceed to describe the relationship between “the growth of global, European-based empires and the Christian churches (What we have learned, 2015, p. 15).” I refer to the final report of RCAP (1996) because it structured a story of the past relationship between Canada and Aboriginal peoples into four temporal periods which I review below. They are: (1) Separate worlds (Before 1500), (2) Contact and Cooperation (1500s – 1867), (3) Displacement and Assimilation (1867 – 1969), and (4) Negotiation and Renewal (1969 – 2016) (RCAP, 1996). Arguably, we are now in a fifth period that may be called Truth and Reconciliation (2016 – future).

Separate Worlds (Before 1500): Sovereign Nations before European arrival

In RCAP, the period prior to 1500s was described as separate worlds, Aboriginal societies in the Americas and non-Aboriginal societies in Europe developed in entirely different geographic spaces, in ignorance of one another. It is a period that shall not be presented as a historical void for the territories we now refer to as Canada. Indigenous societies who occupied the space had regional governments and traditional territorial boundaries that spanned the continent. There was also variety in their languages, cultures, and social traditions. Historically, from an Indigenous perspective, Indigenous peoples are groups of self-governing societies with traditional languages, teachings, and ways of organizing, that have developed since time immemorial. Referring to the period before European settlement of Canada refers to a time when Indigenous nations’ relationship to places were not questioned. The relationship between Indigenous societies and place was engrained in social norms/laws and reflected in the language (McMillan, 2020).

In the last chapter I referred to two concepts of an Indigenist research paradigm – relationality and relational accountability – because they direct us to explore localized Indigenous teachings that derive from Indigenous relationships with local spaces. In Unama’ki/Breton, where I live, the Mi’kmaw nation was a sovereign, self-organizing, political, whole system of knowledge. Traces of the past are found in stories, place names and the language of Mi’kmaw’ki/L’nu. Mi’kmaw origin stories speak of people who sprang from this place (Sable & Francis, 2012). Modern Mi’kmaw governance structures rely on traditional legal concepts that translate into the modern sense of jurisdictional authority (Denny, 2022). The concept of Netukilimk, for example, refers to the responsibility the Mi’kmaw must live in a symbiotic relationship with land, earth, and the environment (McMillan and Prosper, 2016).

Mi’kmaw is among the many Indigenous nations of what is commonly referred to as North America and were vibrant, politically sophisticated, and economically active societies. When Indigenous leaders talk about returning to a nation-to-nation relationship (RCAP, 1996; TRC, 2015) or inherent rights (Canadian Constitution, 1982; TRC, 2015), they are referring to the sovereign nations and political and legal orders that pre-date European settlements in the territory. There were complex models of exchange and trade (i.e., economies) that functioned in this space within and between nations (MacLeod, 2016, Voyageur et al, 2011) such that traditional Indigenous trading routes of the period were the foundation of the fur trade (Heber, 2011).

Contact and Cooperation (1500s – 1867)

The next historical period is defined by the events of first encounter between Indigenous societies, European settlers (citizens of primarily France and England), and official representatives of the British or French Crown (e.g., military leaders, religious leaders, and political delegations). Contact refers to the new contacts that were made between those societies who had not been aware of one another, let alone in contact with one another. In the 1500s the encounters between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal societies began to increase in number and complexity (Heber, 2011; Newhouse, Voyager, & Beavon, 2005). The period spanned over 300 years, and generations of families. It witnessed significant economic events, including the establishment of military outposts (e.g., Fortress of Louisburg, locally), trading posts (e.g., Hudson’s Bay Company, Northwest Company), the Royal Proclamation (1763), the War of 1812, and the American Revolution.

The period is characterized as contact and cooperation in reference to the nature of many of the inter-societal interactions between and among treaty partners and political allies. The political agreements were negotiated between governments to clarify how the places their citizens occupied would be managed. Treaties were formed with settlers representing the crown, the church, and the state (Battiste, 2016; Borrows, 2017; Morin, 2005). The treaties allowed for social, economic, and political relationships to develop that became the foundation of the modern Canadian economy. A list of treaties in chronological order is provided in Brown et al (2016, p. 292). During the period in which the historic treaties (e.g., Peace and Friendship Treaties) and numbered treaties (i.e., Treaties 1-11) were signed, Indigenous societies were recognized as independent self-governing groups with sovereignty in their homeland. This counternarrative undermines the basis of claims through which European governments claimed sovereignty in the space commonly known as Canada’s baseline colonial policy, the Doctrine of Discovery (Borrows, 2017; Canada, 1996).

Displacement and Assimilation (1867 – 1969): Canada’s Indian Act Approach

The British North America Act (BNA) of 1867 ushered in a new political relationship between nations and with it the Indian Act of 1876. Together they signified the beginning of confederation processes for European settler colonies and governments. The Canadian TRC referred to the Indian Act as a policy of cultural genocide established as part of the BNA, a policy of the British sovereign that claimed rights to territory, and the pre-cursor to the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982. The construction of Indian Act policies, based in these assumptions, disenfranchised Indigenous peoples from their claims to tradition, culture, and sovereignty in their homelands.

I think of this period as a shift toward colonial denial. It is defined by the implementation of new settler-colonial laws. The new laws informed a new idea of Canada (the state) that was dependent on the delegitimization of local Indigenous societies. Once the BNA was in place, the Federal Government’s approach to Indian affairs replaced Indigenous leaders’ sense of sovereignty and agency with dependency. Multiple amendments gradually increased the power of Indian Agents and diminished the relative power of Indians to resist enfranchisement (Cardinal, 1969). It was a systemic approach that, over decades, became more pervasive through policy development and militarization.

There are several select events (see Table 3-1) that represent a relationship between the colonial government’s approach to Indian Affairs that treated “Indians” as incompetent wards of the state. They include implementation of policies (e.g., gradual enfranchisement, encroachment in places, resource exploitation, and militarization) and court decisions that reinforced the legitimacy of their actions, at least from the perspective of Eurocentric legal principles (Borrows, 2017). Among these many regionally specific and national policies, was the Indian Residential School (IRS) policy.

Indian Residential Schools were one aspect of cultural assimilation and cultural genocide. Canada’s Indian Residential School System was a nation-wide federally funded program. The expressed goal of the system was to (re-)educate Indigenous children (then referred to as Indians) by disenfranchising them from their families, communities, and traditions (Battiste, 2013). The Indian Residential School policy, like so many policies managed by the Federal Department Indian Affairs was designed to eradicate Indigenous cultures and languages, through systems that promoted neglect for human dignity. The operation of Indian Residential Schools spanned years between 1867 – 1998, but the peak recorded annual enrollment was almost 12,000 children in the 1950s spread across roughly 90 schools.

Many “students” who attended these schools were treated terribly. They were subjected to physical and emotional violence. We now have evidence that thousands of children died in residential schools, and hundreds of them were buried in unmarked graves on the school sites². Like all other federal policies that derived from Indian Act, administrative oversight for the national program was delegated to the Department of Indian Affairs who then outsourced the administration of the “schools” to religious institutions. The Federal Government was ultimately responsible for continued funding of administration and the supply of students to them (MacDonald, 2007; MacDonald and Hudson, 2012), thus it was also responsible for the harms endured by those who attended them.

Indian Residential Schools and the White Paper Policy. Most of the Indian Residential Schools were closed during this period too. The closures reflected a change in the federal government’s Indian Residential School approach. By the 1950’s the Indian Affairs education system lacked the money and resources required to support the segregated school system, and modified The Indian Act so that First Nations students could attend public schools. The move to transfer students from church run schools to provincially run public schools temporally coincided with the release of the federal government’s White Paper on “Indian Policy” which “… proposed a massive transfer of responsibility for First Nations people from the federal to provincial governments. It called for the repeal of the Indian Act, the winding up of the Department of Indian Affairs, and the eventual extinguishment of the Treaties (What we have learned, 2015, p. 40).”

Negotiation and Renewal (1969 – 2016): Indigenous- led united resurgence in Canada

The final period RCAP identifies started around 1969, referring to the White Paper (Canada, 1968), and corresponding response, the Red Paper (Cardinal, 1970). Negotiation refers to the prevalence of legal and political responses to Indigenous advocacy which eventually led to a re-negotiation and recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights. Three watershed events are recognized as shaping this era of Native activism in Canada (Coulthard (2014): (1) The militarization of First Nations’ opposition to the 1969 White paper described as, “an unprecedented degree of pan-Indigenous assertiveness and political mobilization.” (p.5); (2) The Calder decision in 1973 that launched a series of discussions regarding Aboriginal title to land that existed prior to settlement; and (3) series of events related to the energy crisis and the oil crisis of the 1970s that were also related to unresolved issues of Native rights.

I think of the 1970s and 1980s as a period of defined by Indigenous-led peaceful political resistance and leadership leveraging their power through diplomatic assembly. Multiple Aboriginal advocacy organizations were established regionally and nationally. The National Indian Brotherhood, the precursor to the Assembly of First Nations, was established in 1967 and incorporated in 1970. The Native Women’s Association of Canada was established in 1974.

Resisting government policy and seeking justice: The origins of the TRC. The Oka Crisis of 1990 was one of the most notable and relevant to consider the intersection between economic development and reconciliation (Meng, 2020). From a lens of economic development, Oka represents the plausible implications of failing to consult Indigenous nations before launching new developments in their territories. It also marked a turning point in terms of reconciliation because the fall out of the standoff between the land defenders and Canadian military, prompted the launch of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Barsh, 2005; Regan, 2010).

In the 1990’s the Canadian justice system that historically supported values of colonialism began ruling in favor of Indigenous rights (Cassidy, 2005, p. 38) and challenged federal policies to change. If the government refused to acknowledge the truth about the systemic nature the Indian Residential Schools and controlled the narrative in public Canadian places (Regan, 2010), Aboriginal peoples continued to resist and seek justice through public measures. While leaders of federal government and church institutions continued to deny their legal accountability for the residential school system as a whole, individuals in local churches had begun to acknowledge the harms that some individuals and communities suffered because of the schools. The series of apologies offered in the 1980s and 1990s from religious officials and church representatives are listed in Appendix of TRC’s Executive Summary TRC, (TRC, 2015, p. 378). The church apologies that span 1986 – 2015, further evidence of the scope, scale, and impact of the Indian Residential School Programs on local communities. In the same period, student survivors increasingly turned to the justice system as a means of seeking reparations for damages.

With respect to reconciliation, the period following RCAP also saw the launch of the 1998 Exploratory Dialogues, and the process of Alternative Dispute Resolution Process, and the birth of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation (AHF). Taken together, this series of events increasingly affirmed Indigenous rights, and legitimized the truth of survivor stories. Because the TRC mandate was established as part of the Settlement Process, the legal context of negotiation presented salient cues for framing of the localized TRC discourse (James, 2022) discussed below.

The launch of the TRC coincided with the Federal Public Apology for the Indian Residential Schools. On June 11, 2008, the Prime Minister of Canada delivered an official “Statement of Apology – to the former students of Indian Residential Schools” (TRC, 2015, p. 369). The apology, in theory, would represent an end to the government denial. And, while it is beyond the scope of the analysis here, it raised important new cues for the Canadian public and Indigenous peoples. The government apology could not be compelled through the Settlement Agreement and was therefore considered a strategic political decision/announcement (Niezen, 2010).

Truth and Reconciliation (2016 – future)

I contend we have entered a fifth period that may be called Truth and Reconciliation for three reasons: (1) the RCAP (1996) laid out a 20-year strategy presented as the foundation for a renewed relationship; (2) the publication of the TRC’s final report was issued two decades after the RCAP report (Graham and Newhouse, 2021); (3) the TRC process appears to have changed the discourses of reconciliation and may have also marked a shift in the dynamics of negotiation and renewal that were imagined in RCAP; and (4) while many people were looking to the TRC for guidance about reconciliation (e.g., Craft and Regan, 2020) many have taken a longer view of reconciliation referring to the on-going implications of RCAP (Graham and Newhouse, 2021; Hughes, 2012; Regan, 2010).

Discussion implications of formative context for my Two-Eyed CSM analysis

It was important for my analysis of the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission to foreground Indigenous literature because in my experience the work of Aboriginal and Indigenous authors tends to be overlooked by mainstream business school literature. Step two of the Two-Eyed CSM method involves positioning yourself as a researcher relative to Indigenous communities, including communities of practice. The information provided above (see Appendix 1) are germinal to legal and political reference points of Aboriginal-led community economic development. The literature review also addresses two critical aspects of the Critical Sensemaking heuristic. The body of work that makes up the field of Aboriginal economic development specifically represents the formative context of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It also provides salient and retrospective cues that inform me as I make sense of the context of the case study.

There are four points to highlight before moving on to the case study analysis. First, the specific language or words that are presented in popular media that make up the discourse of Canada-Indigenous reconciliation today have been carried forward over time. The discourse of reconciliation is changing and adapting, so when I hear it used today, I am attentive to the relational cues that position the intended meaning of the dialogue temporally, professionally, and politically. I discuss the dynamics of the discourse in greater detail below. Second, the Indian Residential Schools were devastating, and were but one aspect of the systematic process of political disenfranchisement and cultural genocide. Third, the strategy that the Federal government has used has been policy dependent which prompted the sub-sequent resistance response of Indigenous communities. The distrust and skepticism about the intentions of government action is justified and can be used to surface the discursive political moves. Lastly, I reiterate the value of the culturally relevant gender-based analysis toolkits developed by the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC, 2020, 2022, 2023).

Connecting the history of Canada-Indigenous Relationships to global reconciliation discourses

As a discourse of change there is an assumption about what truth and reconciliation commissions are and what they are supposed to do (Stanton, 2022). Initially, in my analysis I reviewed the global academic discourses related to truth and reconciliation commissions (Hayner, 2011; Maddison, Clark, and de Costa, 2016) with the intention, as others have done, of positioning descriptions of the Canadian TRC relative to them (Nagy, 2012; 2014; Regan, 2010; Snelgrove, Dhamoon, & Corntassel, 2014). The basic premise of a TRC appears straight forward: social justice is dependent on surfacing truth (e.g., government transparency), development of socially equitable policies (i.e., policy change), and gradual social reform (i.e., discursive change). Therefore, the role of commissions, temporary constituted government institutions, is primarily discursive (de Costa, 2017). Their goals are to focus on illuminating how political and legal rules/structures must change to create more equitable processes and to promote public accountability by recommending reforms.

The truth aspect of a commission, then, assumes that if publics are made aware of structures that perpetuate injustice, then they will hold institutions accountable to change (Bakiner, 2014; Hayner, 2011). This model of change also assumes the power to enact change lies with states and government institutions. By extension, the role of civil society is to present a united ethical stand to pressure governments to change policies and laws (Bakiner, 2014; Hayner, 2011). Hayner (2011) suggested it is necessary to evaluate change over extended periods of time to determine whether historical narratives of the past become more complicated. Bakiner (2014) discussed the need for TRCs to mobilize civil society to disrupt political power dynamics. Citizens must be aware and engaged. Therefore, one of the questions that was asked with respect to the Canadian TRC was this: If Canadian publics were disinterested in Aboriginal issues leading up to the TRC (James, 2017), did the work of the TRC instigate change in the public awareness and interest?

The review of global discourses highlights a need to clarify the locally relevant dimensions of discourse. If we explore and subject national histories to critical questioning, i.e., about the legacies of national histories and the place of the nation state, we make room for radically different conceptions of justice (Scott, 2020). The first step then is to consider the pre-conditions of the relationship to be reconciled, or the locally relevant formative context (e.g., national history). A multi-level approach to conceptualizing reconciliation reveals the need to take a broader perspective on a range of structural, institutional, and interpersonal transformations that promote democratic values and contestations (Maddison, 2017). In other words, the means of evaluating the success of commissions is also dependent on the situation specific baseline conditions from which success is measured. And it is also necessary to be aware of the often-implicit assumptions about history, the objectivity of knowledge claims, and agency to create change (Suddaby and Foster, 2016).

The Discourse of Reconciliation: Learning about history to make sense of plausible future action

The relationship between traditional Indigenous governments and the federal government of Canada is complicated by the way the relationship was (re-)presented in mainstream media and literature (Regan, 2010). The brief history above, presented to foreground Indigenous perspectives of the formative context of the Canada-Indigenous relationship, highlights cues that continue to be important to the modern Crown-Indigenous relationship and therefore the discourse of Canada-Indigenous reconciliation. My analysis of the administrative process of the TRC shows a correlation between the change in the discourses of Crown-Indigenous relations and the completion of the TRC.

The analysis in the next two chapters focuses heavily on two documents: (1) the Mandate Statement, Schedule N of the Indian Residential School Settlement agreement (2006), and (2) Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary Report of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC, 2015a). In terms of the discourse of reconciliation they reflect the language used at the beginning and end of the TRC’s process. At the beginning of the process the principles of reconciliation said:

Reconciliation is an ongoing individual and collective process, and will require commitment from all those affected including First Nations, Inuit, and Métis former Indian Residential School (IRS) students, their families, communities, religious entities, former school employees, government, and the people of Canada. Reconciliation may occur between any of the above groups. (Schedule “N,” 2006, p. 1)

Similarly, the opening chapter of the summary report defined reconciliation as follows:

[…] reconciliation is about establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in this country. In order for that to happen there has to be an awareness of the past, acknowledgement of the harm that has been inflicted, atonement for the causes, and action to change behaviour. (TRC, 2015, pp. 6-7)

Later in the same chapter, “The Commission defines reconciliation as ongoing processes of establishing and maintaining respectful relationships (TRC, 2015, p. 16).” Further, “A critical part of this process involves repairing damaged trust by making apologies, providing individual and collective reparations, and following through with concrete actions that demonstrate societal change. (TRC, 2015, p. 16)”

Reconciliation is a political process and requires engagement and change in all departments of the federal government and within the policies they produce. Reconciliation processes are not the exclusive responsibility of the federal government or federal departments. Reconciliation requires, “…commitment from all those affected including First Nations, Inuit, and Métis former Indian Residential School (IRS) students, their families, communities, religious entities, former school employees, government and the people of Canada.” (Schedule “N,” 2006, p. 1)

Exploring the connection between history and future action. The TRC presents a discourse of reconciliation that requires fostering awareness about Indigenous histories and Canada’s histories so that they can inform the future reconciliation processes. The decade of dialogue sessions as part of the negotiation and renewal period was significant for the TRC. They frame the relationship and the corresponding power dynamic that existed between Indigenous governments and the Federal government. The federal government and church institutions continued to deny their legal accountability for the Indian Residential Schools as a whole, but some began to acknowledge the stories of individual harm. Student survivors increasingly turned to the justice system as a means of seeking reparations for damages.

With respect to reconciliatory change, the narrative presented by RCAP also reflects the agency of individuals and communities to change policy. In the case of the TRC, a series of small wins over time created a situation in which it was increasingly difficult to publicly deny the nature of the Indian Residential School systems, the legacy impacts, and the extent of the institutional coordination and involvement. For example, when the courts certified the Cloud Class Action of Mohawk Institute (1997 – 2004), the decision validated the plausibility of systems of neglect (Nagy, 2014). A new precedent was set where, “Wider harms of residential schools would be legally actionable (Nagy, 2014 p. 205, cites Leslie Thielen-Wilson 2012).” Up to that point, the federal government, and churches as administrators of schools, could not be held accountable for the impacts of a residential schools on a whole group of people. At best, a senior administrator would be held accountable for their individual behaviour. Once the Cloud Class Action was certified, it created a legal precedent for evaluating the social structures and impacts of residential schools. The Settlement Agreement , the largest out-of-court settlement in Canadian history, was a legal process to help survivors receive justice. It represented legal acknowledgment of the plausibility of the mass number of legal claims made by former Indian Residential School Survivors against the Government of Canada and Religious Institutions.

The IRSSA was meant to bring a fair and lasting resolution to the legacy of Indian Residential Schools by providing financial and non-financial benefits to the individuals affected by the Indian Residential Schools experience. Its implementation was to be overseen by nine provincial and territorial Superior Courts, and funded by the Government of Canada (Independent Assessment Process, 2021, p. 21).

It was further determined that various structures of settlement were necessary to sort through the claims, determine legitimacy of individual claims, and evaluate the scope of the Indian Residential School system nationally. Thus, the Settlement Agreement presented a solution that helped to legally determine the truths about the past. While some sub-processes like the Independent Assessment Process provided compensation for residential school survivors (Independent Assessment Process, 2021), the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and funding for commemorative events “extended beyond direct survivors themselves and were intended to document the residential school experience and advance healing and reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian state” (Independent Assessment Process, 2021, p. 21). Because the TRC mandate was established as part of the Settlement Process the legal context of negotiation presented salient cues for framing of the localized TRC discourse (James, 2022).

Challenging the silent identity discourses of

reconciliation. Canada-Indigenous Reconciliation is inherently a political discussion, because government policies flow through to the delivery of services to people, i.e., citizens. Aboriginal peoples in Canada have a unique relationship that the federal government is bound in the definitions of citizenship presented in the Indian Act and the Canadian Constitution Act. Despite the Canadian justice system historically deeming many traditional practices as illegal (Denny, 2022; Young, 2016), multiple court cases of the past have been overturned on the grounds that the original decisions did not recognize the treaty rights of Indigenous peoples. Thus, the Supreme Court of Canada has legitimized Indigenous claims to inherent rights in their traditional territories. Furthermore, modern provincial and federal governments of Canada still derive jurisdictional authority in the territory from the British Crown via the British North America Act (i.e., the Constitution) are responsible for upholding the spirit and intent of those historic treaties.

Policies such as the Indian Act and the Canadian Constitution Act also have direct implications on the relationship between individuals and regional governments on account of the social services that are provided to them (e.g., health care and education). Political identities are also tied to their physical location (on or off reserve) and their political/legal connections to Indigenous governments. Until recently other levels of Canadian government did not formally engage with Aboriginal communities to avoid conflation of jurisdictional boundaries. However, the strict definitions of jurisdictional authority that are bound to place rather than individual has been shifting as duty to consult legislation, the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples, and Supreme Court decisions expand their definitions and return to the original treaty arrangements.

I focus on the (dis-) connections between these discourses of reconciliation and the discourses that reproduce power in the problematic settler-colonial discourses identified in the CRGBA framework. The literature review above presents a dynamic story of relationships between Indigenous peoples and settler-colonizers that have changed over the course of almost 600 years. There are stories of meeting, cooperation, economic development, disagreement, political and religious manipulation, social displacement, and resistance to change. Future reconciliation efforts to repair broken relationships must account for the political, legal, social, religious, and economic dimensions of these stories and their legacies that are reproduced in modern Canadian policy documents.

In my analysis of the reconciliation processes addressed by the TRC, I refer to the CRGBA framework because it distills the challenges Canadian policies present for Indigenous peoples into five absent discourses: (1) the need for policies to account for legal and political Indigenous identity distinctions, (2) Indigenous knowledges and teachings, (3) gender diversity and (4) other common intersectional identity concerns, (5) and legacies of trauma resulting from the weaponization of policy (NWAC, 2022, p.48). The relative silence in mainstream literature with respect to these important policy issues was a challenge for me to articulate until the CRGBA toolkits were published.

Conclusion: Historical Discourses, Silences (policy gaps), and CRGBA

It is not a secret that Canada is a colonial state. The ties between the Canadian Government and Canadian cultural identity are closely tied to the British Government and the Commonwealth. And yet, the idea of settler colonialism is often presented as a part of the distant past of Canada’s formation and not as a modern ongoing project of maintaining Canadian power and legitimacy in sovereign Indigenous territories. Canadian social systems were, in fact, intentionally designed to erase Indigenous peoples, or at least their social structures and rights. The literature review in this chapter highlights germinal points that explain the integrated and deliberate political institutional strategies that were designed to prevent them from acting as self-governing nations and to diminish legitimate Aboriginal claims to self-government. The brief history above highlights cues that continue to be important to the modern Crown-Indigenous relationship and therefore the discourse of Canada-Indigenous reconciliation. This chapter represents one of the steps that is necessary in the reconciliation process – listening to, and learning from, Indigenous people’s perspective of the past. It is also the second step in the Two-Eyed CSM analysis, positioning my research question in the context of the communities with whom I study and work.

It was clear in the TRC reports that these foundational legal and political Crown-Indigenous and Nation-to-Nation relationships must be reconciled. It was also clear that these were not the only relationships that mattered. I focus on the TRC case study to consider whether and how these cues from formative context influenced the work of Commissioners as administrators. The line of questioning I follow in this thesis asks how the Commissioners made sense of the discourses in order to enact reconciliation-oriented change. And, to what extent were their choices helped or hindered by other related processes outlined in the Settlement Agreement that potentially conflated the meaning of truth and/or reconciliation?

The historical review helps to identify policy gaps and reinforces the value of the CRGBA framework. It clarifies the reasons CRGBA prioritizes the need to account for politically distinct identities, i.e., distinctions-based policy, and to be trauma-informed. In the next chapter, I will review the goals set out for the TRC. They were extensive, complex, and ambitious (James, 2022; Nagy, 2014; Stanton, 2017). I use questions presented in the CRGBA framework to evaluate the extent to which the TRC was designed to be culturally relevant to Indigenous claimants (former IRS Students and their families) drawing on the resources provided (NWAC, 2020, 2021, 2022).