Thavalingam 1

To what extent is the Government of Ontario genuinely committed to a policy of reconciliation

with Indigenous people?
The Government of Ontario’s policies promoting “reconciliation” is simply a foundation

based in acknowledgement of historical bigotry and the post-colonial aftermath rather, than

concrete steps to improve standards of living for Indigenous communities. The “Legacy” chapter

of the TRC Final Report’s states multiple calls to action that are broad sentiments with no

specific direction. For instance, most of these ‘calls to action’ have the same buzz word of

“funding” (appearing 122 times in this chapter) yet its never accompanied with a specific amount

of funding nor any specific organization/group its being “funded to. The lack of detail barricades

and quite frankly, deceives both Indigenous people and allies into believing the Government is

on a productive pathway to “reconciliation.” Whilst, the current policies of Ontario are

practically blurred lines, it is possible for Canada to be successful for Ontario and generally put,

Canada to reach reconciliation as discussed by Matt James in his comparative essay entitled,

“Uncomfortable Comparisons: The Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission in

International Context.” James analyses historical examples of shifts in governmental powers in

countries like Uganda, Chile, South Africa, El Salvador and Argentina and, investigated its

various implications; in comparison to contemporary Canada. James found three factors that can

deem a country to redeem itself from historical injustices: (1) Nature of the historical injustices

(2) Government’s compliance (3) Sufficient resources. Although, Canada basically failed the

first two as the residential schools were systematically enforced with the purpose to eliminate

indigeneity, James was still optimistic about Canada’s reconciliation policies by reason of

economic stability. Colleen Sheppard also commented on this essay in her paper, “Indigenous

Peoples in Canada: Understanding Divergent Conceptions of Reconciliation,” where she

comments how a comparative lens showcases the importance of approaching reconciliation from
 Thavalingam 2

a federal perspective rather than a provincial. She used a comment discussing Apartheid

concerning South Africa and Southwest Africa (now Nambia), “‘because the process was slanted

toward individual amnesty, there was little hope of the structural evils of apartheid being held

accountable. Apartheid, being a crime against humanity, was to go largely unpunished as the

TRC had chosen rather to forgive and forget those making contrite confessions.’ (Sheppard

2013).” All in all, the Government of Ontario’s efforts to reconciliation may be genuine at face-

value, it won’t be productive let alone worthwhile if there is no confirmed participation from the

federal government of Canada.

 Thavalingam 3

Bibliography

James, Matt "Uncomfortable Comparisons: The Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission in

International Context". Ethics workshops / The Ethics Forum 5, no. 2 (2010): 23–35.

https://doi.org/10.7202/1044312ar

Sheppard, Collen. “Indigenous Peoples in Canada: Understanding Divergent Conceptions of

Reconciliation” ISID Aboriginal Policy Study Papers, edited Éloïse Ouellet-Décoste f, 1-21,

University of McGill, April 28th, https://www.mcgill.ca/isid/files/isid/pb_2013_04_sheppard.pdf

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future:

Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.