Commentary
What is the difference between the treaties that indigenous people signed and the Calls to Action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Report?
In a single word: “reciprocity.”
The treaties assumed that reciprocity is necessary in any agreement, while the Calls to Action do not.
History teaches us that reciprocity is the social norm used to respond to another person’s positive or negative actions. If an action is positive, the appropriate response is positive, but if an action is negative, the appropriate response is negative. Most people understand this notion in the common-sense phrases “tit-for-tat” and “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.”
Not surprisingly, the norm of reciprocity has been called the first principle of agreements and can be traced back to the Hammurabi Code 3,700 years ago. This code has, from that time, provided the guiding principle for agreements and treaties between nations.
Related Stories
Thus, it is not surprising that reciprocity was firmly embedded in the treaties between the indigenous people and the Canadian government more than 100 years ago. Negotiators from both groups realized that their agreements for peaceful co-existence would only come about if the preconditions of trust, cooperation, and reciprocity had been established.
Take, for example, 1876 Treaty 6 negotiated between “The Queen [Victoria] and the Plain and Wood Cree Indians.” This treaty proclaims: “Her Majesty agrees to maintain schools for instruction in such reserves hereby made as to Her Government of the Dominion of Canada may seem advisable, whenever the Indians of the reserve shall desire it” (emphasis added).
Later, the treaty proclaims: “Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that they … shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes by Her said Government of the Dominion of Canada.”
Simply, if the indigenous people ask for schools, the government will provide and administer them, and if these people sign Treaty 6, they can continue to hunt and fish on crown land with restrictions that they agreed to accept.
Now, let us compare these words, written over 130 years ago. with the words in the TRC Report, written a decade ago.
Call to Action No. 11, for example, proclaims: “We call upon the federal government to provide adequate funding to end the backlog of First Nations students seeking a post-secondary education.”
And Call to Action No. 21 proclaims: “We call upon the federal government to provide sustainable funding for existing and new Aboriginal healing centres to address the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual harms caused by residential schools, and to ensure that the funding of healing centres in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories is a priority.”
In other words, indigenous people are to receive educational and health support from Canadian governments (and taxpayers) with no reciprocal obligations. This will mean a steady stream of money because “adequate funding” and “sustainable funding” are indeterminate. More is always needed.
It is easy to see that while the 1876 treaty expected reciprocity, respect, and mutual obligations from both indigenous and non-indigenous people, the Calls to Action expect none of these from indigenous people. Of course, non-indigenous taxpayers will have an obligation to meet this Call to Action.
Not surprisingly, the TRC Report quotes several people who have said that no matter what happens, they will not concede to reconciliation in any case. The Commission responds with the following words:
“Canadian governments and their law departments have a responsibility to discontinue acting as though they are in an adversarial relationship with Aboriginal people and to start acting as true fiduciaries. … Therefore, we conclude that Aboriginal claims of title and rights should be accepted on assertion, with the burden of proof placed on those who object to such claims.”
This means that Canadian governments must agree with indigenous claims even when they may be unfair or too expensive. If governments do not support indigenous claims without question, they will be failing as fiduciary stewards of indigenous rights. There is no reciprocity in this important clause.
Of course, fulfilling this assertion is likely to result in resentment from both groups, which is the opposite of reconciliation. One side will say that the funding is insufficient, and the other side will say that considerable resources have been spent with few improvements and hardly any words of appreciation.
Thus, Canadians may be headed in the wrong direction to reach an honourable and peaceful reconciliation. Perhaps the only way forward is to return to the notion of reciprocity that is embedded in the treaties.
The book I co-edited with Mark DeWolf, “From Truth Comes Reconciliation: An Assessment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report,” makes a plea to change the direction in which Canada is heading in response to the 94 Calls to Action. Simply, both indigenous and non-indigenous people need to pull back from locking themselves into never-ending rounds of demands and responses. Reconciliation can only be achieved when indigenous and non-indigenous people respect and trust each other, and when reciprocity is embedded in the calls to action.
Rodney A. Clifton is a professor emeritus at the University of Manitoba and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. “From Truth Comes Reconciliation: An Assessment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report” has been co-edited with Mark DeWolf. The book was published on Nov. 5 and can be ordered from Amazon.ca.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
