Canada’s Challenges toward Decolonization and the Next Steps

Below is a course paper during my Peace and Conflict Studies. The core concepts of the course used non-violent resistance as the primary approach for resolving conflict, including violent conflict. The most influential study statistically proved that non-violent resistance (NVR) is the most sound approach to winning a conflict. This study by Chenoweth and Stephan (2008) should be primary source of reasoning as to why violent conflict should never occur.

Other parts of the course included peacebuilding approaches and differenc mechanisms to enable peacebuilding. I focused my research on the Aboriginal and Canada relationship. Below is the course paper, reproduced.

Abstract

While Canada has built a reputation as peacekeepers as Lester B Pearson won the nobel peace prize for creating the UN Peacekeeping Forces as a non-partisan body to reinforce ceasefires, Canada itself suffers from a different conflict. From the long colonization process, harsh treatments of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada were assimilated to become "Canadian". Methods that were used include land and resource control, culturual genocide, disenfrancishement and disempowerment of the peoples, and the infamous residential schools. Over 200 years of systematic cultural genocide and colonization continues to this day. This paper presents one possible solution of decolonization and reconciliation through the study of peace and conflict scholars, Aboriginal grassroots initiatives, the Calls of Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC), and the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). 

Canada’s Challenges toward Decolonization and the Next Steps

The Conceptual Framework

The arrival of European settlers to North America required the help of the Aboriginal peoples of North America. Disease, war and broken promises killed, assimilated and created a two century-long genocide against the Aboriginals who had helped the settlers. European politics took precedence and changed the face of the land leading toward the creation of a new country over existing ones. The struggle and battles carry long lasting effects of colonization which is still ongoing to this day without resolve. The aim of the paper is to examine the challenges ahead of Canada’s decolonization process and give recommendations for a stronger reconciliation process. Discussion of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 based on Terra Nullius sets the stage for Canada’s current Aboriginal issues regarding UN Declaration of Rights on Indigenous People (UNDRIP), Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada, land, treaties, relationships and community impacts and how these recommendations can move Aboriginals and settlers working together toward a peaceful and equitable co-existence.


To fully appreciate recommendations discussed later in the essay, an understanding of the approach will draw further insights. Taking Lederach’s Progression of Conflict Framework, based off Curle’s matrix, it discusses peacebuilding as a processes and can help to map certain events between Canada and the Aboriginals people along the progression to sustainable peace.

Beginning at the “education” and “latent conflict”, there must be certain power relationships that are unbalanced which has many influences that set up the precursor to conflict. To further draw out the contextual situation, applying the Social Cube Analytical Model (Byrne and Nadan, 2011) can provide further insight to a given situation. This list includes:

• Historical Force
• Religious Force
• Political Force
• Psycho-cultural Force
• Demographic Force
• Economic Force

Upon analysis of these forces, it can provide a deeper understanding of the problem. In relation to the Aboriginal peoples and Canada, the next section introduces the history and power imbalance and relationship the two parties have with each other.

In Lederach’s framework, the perceived area between the relationship of Canada and the Aboriginals is between open conflict and negotiation. “By the end of the 1970s, new battle lines had been drawn. Native groups and territorial politicians alike chafed against southern development priorities and political domination. Different conceptions of the northern territories held by native groups, regional politicians, and the federal government, were raised and debated. Little had been resolved, however, leaving the political future of Canada’s colonies very much in doubt” (Coates, 226). Open conflict quadrant can be seen in the infamous 1990 Oka Crisis and more recently the protests against the Northern Gateway Pipeline in British Columbia (Kane, 2015). Negotiation quadrant currently involves the Calls to Action has been issued by the TRC and recently by Prime Minister Trudeau calling for working relationships with the Aboriginals people, where in December 8, 2015 he announced that “The victims deserve justice, their families an opportunity to be heard and to heal” (Mas, 2015).

To achieve sustainable peace, the recommendations discussed will be based upon Kantowitz and Raik’s Integrated Peace and Development Framework (IPAD). The IPAD framework is based upon:

1)      Creating a culture of good governance

2)      Transforming persons

3)      Working in coalitions

4)      Enhancing communities to generate hope, and;

5)      Developing sustainable livelihoods with just distribution of resources

This process would begin at the intersection of open conflict and negotiation leading up to the top right corner of the Progression of Conflict framework. Given the examples of the open conflict and negotiation processes mentioned earlier, it is the prime time to implement such peacebuilding programs and initiatives to rebuild relationships for the benefit of both Aboriginals and Canada.

For divided society to find reconciliation, they must “envision the future [as] the necessary ingredient” (Lederach, 27). This means that Canada and the Aboriginal peoples must build a life together in which they can both see living in each other space. Lederach states that “reconciliation is understood as a process of relationship building” (Lederach, 151). As the paper will discuss later, the Aboriginal’s philosophy on building relationship will be an important factor for reconciliation and is reflected in the recommendations set out by the TRC.

In line with Funk’s paper on Building on What’s Already There (2012), taking indigenous practices would be vital to the reconciliation process as the culture is rich and pre-disposed to this concept, as we will explore later. “Peace must ultimately be constructed locally on a foundation that is recognized as legitimate” (Funk, 399). This concept runs integrated into the reconciliation process to help construct the necessary infrastructures for peace. The main challenge will be the acceptance of indigenous practices by Canada.

Terra Nullius sets the Stage for Colonization

To understand the forces at work, the Social Cube Analytical Model can be used in conjunction with the Conflict Progression Framework to begin to unpack the Aboriginal issues. The legal doctrine set out by the Europeans titled “Terra Nullius”, contextually translated as “Nobody’s Land” declared that any discovered lands that do not have civilized humans are considered empty lands and could be colonized to be made fruitful. Having this doctrine in relation to Europeans discovery of Canada, it allowed the European settlers to assert their sovereignty over the Indigenous peoples of Canada. “The legal doctrine of terra nullius… enabled Europeans to believe that aboriginal peoples were incapable of being considered sovereign over the territories they occupied, because they did not make ‘proper’ use of the land, were supposedly without law or the institutions of (European) civil government or were otherwise considered too low in the hierarchy of civilized races” (Boyce, 1). Terra Nullius set the stage for the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which was written as an agreement between British North America (BNA) and the different Aboriginal nations.

During this period, the Aboriginal peoples were working in harmony together with the European settlers. “Over the first two hundred and fifty years of settler life in Canada, the newcomers had at best reached the level of partnership with the Aboriginals. New France, the Hudson’s Bay Company and the North West Company consciously built their place here on the indigenous ideas of mutual dependency and partnership” (Saul, 5). The Truth and Reconciliation Commission also states that “Aboriginal peoples have always remembered the original relationship they had with early Canadians. This relationship of mutual support, respect, and assistance was confirmed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaties with the Crown that were negotiated in good faith by their leaders” (TRC, 20). Both Aboriginals and settlers have been learning about each other’s culture and way of life. However, not both sides always saw eye to eye. “On one side – the First Nations – this was a traditional way to build alliances. On the other-the new comers- it was a policy aimed at improving their lives and at stabilizing and controlling the fur trade” (Saul, 11). Power relations between the different parties began to shift in the nineteenth century and over time, the understanding of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is looked at differently as the BNA giving order to the Aboriginal nations[1]. “The long, rich history of Indigenous diplomacy and covenant making has been largely forgotten or misunderstood by Canadians” (TRC, 39 – 40). By 1876, almost a decade after the European settlers founded Canada, the Aboriginals were caught in a struggle to have their rights on their lands against the newly created Indian Act.

The Indian Act became a binding document which dictated the lives of the Aboriginal peoples on their own lands by the British crown with no consultation with the Aboriginals. This Act included limiting the practice of their culture, strips rights to fight for land, and they are no longer considered an Aboriginal if they become lawyers, teachers or soldiers, all to propagate Canadian citizenship and the assimilation of the Aboriginal[2]. Following the Indian Act came the Forestry Act, Natural Resources Act, and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act all created, arguably, to disenfranchise the Aboriginals through controlling their natural resources[3][4] and putting the Aboriginal onto reserves. In these reserves, “communities were not consulted before they were relocated from their vast traditional territories to much smaller, more remote, and more crowded reserves to make way for government and industrial land and resource development projects. Even when they were not relocated, Aboriginal peoples were economically marginalized in their own homelands when irreversible environmental damage was done in the name of ‘progress’” (TRC, 204). Six years earlier in 1870, the residential schools began taking Aboriginal children to be assimilated by the church and the height of it in the 1960 roundup.

Susan Neylan, a history Professor at Laurier University researching Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in Canada in the 19th and 20th century Christian missions, states that the church's intentons were in good faith to try and integrate the Aboriginals people into Canadian society [5]. However, the approach was poorly executed causing lasting resentment and hatred from the Aboriginals people in Canada."Many Aboriginal people have a deep and abiding distrust of Canada's political and legal systems because of the damage the systems have caused" (TRC, 48). Some of the effects of the residential schools were loss of connection to family and community, effectively destroying their identity [6]. With the last residential school closing in 1996, but continued a turbulent relationship between the Aboriginals people and Canada. 

There are three stages to colonization. The first is dispossession by segregating them from the land and each other. The second, create dependency onto the state by giving handouts and disempowering them. The third, oppression against those who try and rise up [7]. This colonial trauma creates three types of dependency, where there is a strained relationship with authority, being Canada. "First, dependency is a historical and learned dynamic in many post-conflict countries, resulting from the oppressive, authoritarian and/or colonialist systems... Second, paternalism and dependency have been created... Finally, dependency is a result of a legacy of violence in settings where those whot ook up leadship roles or spoke out against authority were severly persecuted" (Kantowitz and Riak, 7). These kinds of sustained long-term trauma create division in communities. "Heightened rates of prostitution, rape, domestic violence and other forms of criminal and gang behaviour are common in so called "post-conflict" societies" (Barsalou, 29). The reservations continue to see all these symptoms of a post-conflict society.

Along with these traumas, abusive stories from residential schools began to surface and 23 class action lawsuits and up to 15,000 legal claims were filed[8]. This called for a public inquiry calling which created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). By December 18^th, 2015, the TRC closed with their Call to Action presented as the next steps for Canada to follow as the road to Reconciliation with the Aboriginals people.

Exploring the Dimensions of Aboriginal and Settler Culture

Before giving the recommendations, understanding the Aboriginal culture can show insight of the clashes of culture with Canada. The author does not claim to understand the complexities of Aboriginal culture, but the visible relevant and fundamental philosophical approaches to different issues can target the areas where more work is required. Aboriginals are a collectivist society with spiritual binding to nature in contrast to meritocracy and ownership of resources. Finding common ground between Aboriginals and Canada will be the next steps toward reconciliation and sustainable peace.

In the spirit of the Aboriginal oral tradition, a story best illustrates the cultural relationship with the land: The hunters one day woke up to find that all their deer and moose have been missing.  The hunters tracked day and night to find where they have gone, as they relied heavily on these animals for food, clothing, resources and trade. Finally, they tracked the deer and the moose to far distances of the forest guarded by owls. They asked the owls if they have the deer and the moose and why they were kidnapped and they replied, “You will never get them back!” With this, the hunters and the owl went to war until the owls conceded and led them to where the deer and the moose were hidden. The hunters approached them and said they are free from the kidnappers. They replied, “We were never kidnapped. We came here voluntarily. Man has forgotten how to respect us and celebrate our gift to man when we are hunted. We were hunted so much we could not be safe and reproduce and have families. That is why we all left.” The hunters apologized and made sure that they are allowed to flourish and only hunt when needed and most importantly celebrate the life in which they gave for man to survive. Peace was made and all lived a fruitful life[9]. This morality story dictates we must respect which gives us life as reciprocity. This kind of spiritual relationship with the land is not found in Canada’s legislation with the environment. Instead it is viewed as ownership which could be bought, bartered and sold.

 “The First Nations leaders weren’t even negotiating ownership. Instead, they were putting on the table concepts of complex, inclusive, balanced existence on the land. The newcomers were pressed for time because they didn’t have much to say and had only come to conclude what they thought of as a legal transfer. They were driven by a simple utilitarian desire for ownership. This was the straightforward, low-level stuff of Western property law described behind the grandiose and romantic idea of Queen Victoria as everyone’s mother” (Saul, 50).

The Aboriginals still view this land as a sacred land in which they negotiated in good faith to maintaining the welfare of the land, upon which all humankind rely on. The different Acts implemented in the Constitution emphasize “protecting private property, [which] runs contrary to Haudenosaunee traditions of communal ownership” (Mann, 333) and co-stewardship of the land.

In the aspect of law and reconciliation, “the confederacy of the Five Nations, to take a single example, was based on the Great Law, which said that clans transcended the boundaries of the nations” (Saul, 61). Mann explains further that “the great law of peace consisted of a council from all five nations, with members titled sachems. They could be impeached if they displeased their clan” (Mann, 331). This shows accountability, which Canadian government lacks and is an attribute of leaders (Anderson and Wallace, 2013). The Aboriginal laws have been so powerful, it required some of the concepts to be incorporated into the Constitution (Mann, 333). “Indigenous law is diverse; each Indigenous nation across the country has its own laws and legal traditions. Aboriginal law is the body of law that exists within the Canadian legal system” (TRC, 45). Saul echoed this in his book A Fair Country discussing how Canadians are more “native” than we think. The TRC went to great lengths to explore some of the Aboriginal nations law and reconciliation processes. This included the Haudenosaunee, Cree, Inuit, Mi’kmaq, Metis, Tlingit, Anishinabee, Hul’q’umi’num, and the Gitxsan peoples (TRC, 2015). “Legal scholar John Borrows explains that, ‘First Nations and powerful individuals would participate in such activities as smoking the peace pipe, feasting, holding a Potlatch, exchanging ceremonial objects, and engaging in long orations, discussions and negotiations. Diplomatic traditions among Indigenous peoples were designed to prevent more direct confrontation....’” (TRC, 45). Mann, taking example from the Haudenosaunee, states that “the general approach of the First nations to people from outside their nation was that a relationship needed to be worked out so that they could deal with each other… Relationships with people from other nations were formalized by defining a place for them in each nation’s family. It was in this state of mind that Aboriginals entered into treaty negotiations” (Mann, 331). All these normal relationship processes are the two Ledearch concepts introduced earlier of envisioning the future together and reconciliation as a process. These concepts and practices do not exist in Canadian legislation and in contrast, Canada required the Aboriginals to assimilate to their perceptively, “lower” Constitution. Understanding how indigenous laws draws us to the next aspect of relationship building.

In relationship with people the Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee people regarded everything as mutually beneficial interaction to create an ongoing relationship. When treaties were created, Anishinaabe and the Haudenosaunee people regarded this as the sacred word of cooperation. “Treaty law is family law”[10] based upon respect, trust and friendship, in this order. Treaties are a process of relationship building[11], not just a document signed for title of land. Canada is regarded as a brother upon signing of treaties. A violation in this treaty is breaking of trust in the family. Canada cannot be trusted for the future if Canada does not respect the past treaties. “The most significant damage is to the trust that has been broken between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples. This broken trust must be repaired” (TRC, 20). Through negotiation to build relationships, the Aboriginals always had one pipe negotiator who deal with others, in particular the Canadian representatives, for as long as they are capable to build respect, trust, relationship and remember the past discussions. Canadian negotiators change frequently and do not understand the context in which they approach the negotiation table because they were not present at the previous meetings[12]. “In indigenous terms, talking negotiating, developing relationships, enlarging the circle was all about the intellectual superiority… If you have to fight, you fight. But that represents a failure of relationships, a failure of foreign policy, not an extension of it, as the classic European phrase would have it” (Saul, 65). The Calls to Action by the TRC are ultimate minimum goals and require a process to achieve it and if Canada can see it through, Canada will be regarded as higher intellectually trusting family member.

While not all aspects of Aboriginal culture is explored here, these examples illustrate the differences in approaches, expectations and philosophy each side brought to the negotiation table. Exploring indigenous techniques may yield several entry points for reconciliation, as it is building on what’s already there (Funk, 2012), should Canada choose to listen.

Reconciliation and Peacebuilding Recommendations

The definition of reconciliation needs to be agreed upon between the Aboriginals and Canada, as currently there are two different definitions. As the Aboriginals see it, Canada (and the Supreme Court) see reconciliation as the Aboriginals reconciling amongst themselves. In contrast to the TRC, reconciliation is healing through rebuilding relationship[13] (TRC (B), 2015). Bob Rae echoed this saying that courts will always say that Aboriginals are Canadian[14], ignoring colonialization that took place and that it is Canadians who are Aboriginals (Saul, 2008).

Reconciliation is a process to rebuild the relationships, which Lederach presented and was the basis for Aboriginal life. Paul Williams[15] had stated “There is no reconciliation, only reconciling”, using the verb depicting it as an active process.

“Reconciliation must become a way of life. It will take many years to repair damaged trust and relationships in Aboriginal communities and between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples. Not only does reconciliation require apologies, reparations, the relearning of Canada’s national history, and public commemoration, but it also needs real social, political, and economic change” (TRC, 20)    

Through this process, it is the rebuilding of relationships which Lederach, Aboriginal peoples and the TRC all are aiming toward. By this definition, Canada needs to learn and submit to these definitions as the first sign of respect to the process laid out by the TRC.

This section will discuss the thematic areas as set out by the IPAD framework surrounding one key TRC recommendation, the Call to Action 45: Royal Proclamation and Covenant of Reconciliation. This Call to Action would mean the Canadian government and Aboriginal nations would sign a new Proclamation for a working relationship. It states “The proclamation would build on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaty of Niagara of 1764, and reaffirm the nation-to-nation relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown” (Calls to Action, 5). Using this as the stepping stone is important because it encompasses the spirit of the TRC and provides an arena which all other Calls to Action and initiatives can build upon. Bob Rae[16] believes this is the path to rebuilding, re-establishing a deep and truthful respect as the old Proclamation was meant for the crown and not a mutually beneficial document.

This Call to Action has its critics and justifiably so. Speaking with two elders[17] Cat Criger and Traditional Healer Jacqui Lavalley, they have voiced their opinion stating they want action instead of more talks, broken promises and apologies. Both criticized the apologies made by Canada, first by Stephen Harper in 2008 and Justin Trudeau in 2015 saying it needs to be followed through with actions. This was echoed by Douglas Sanderson[18] stating that, there is no reason for this document to be drafted. If Canada really wanted to show their intentions, they would just carry out their actions and obey the treaties. Paul Williams[19] stated it is an aspirational document, citing Harper did not even want to implement UNDRIP. “In 2010, Canada endorsed the Declaration as a “non-legally binding aspirational document” (TRC, 26), where the Aboriginals required it to be recognized as international law which Canada will implement. He re-emphasized that this document is as good as nothing if there is no trust built. Heather Dorries[20] criticized that the document is not needed because, not committing genocide does not require a piece of legislation. These are some of the varying criticisms of enacting Call to Action 45 of creating a new Royal Proclamation.

Creating a culture of good governance

The whole of TRC Calls to Action is heavily based upon UNDRIP framework as many of the Calls to Action require Canada to follow the UNDRIP framework. The TRC explicitly states in Call to Action 43 “We call upon federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation” (Calls to Action, 4). These documents are created to tell Canada (and other colonized nation states) how to behave themselves and that these are the minimum requirements for understanding and collaboration with indigenous people[21].  

In this attempt to build good governance, a few scholars have voiced their imaging of the future together. This would require a restructuring of the legislation and policies which consists of a large of part in the TRC. John Kim Bell[22] in his keynote speech had stated that Canada needs to repeal the Indian Act so that the New Proclamation can take place. The Indian Act had long dictated the affairs of the Aboriginals in Canada and needs to be removed to give freedom of action to begin reconciliation. The New Proclamation would be the alternative solution Bartkowski[23] envisioned in the abandonment of one institution for another. Douglas Sanderson had suggested to use a common law system for both Aboriginal and Canadian legal system to work together, as it may not be possible to integrate but could run in parallel to each other. This is echoed by John Kim Bell who had suggested the same parallel concept as there was evidence that the ancient Persian Empire was able to integrate both Islam and Christian laws into their society.

Using both John and Douglas’s idea, a parallel common law system with the Indian Act repealed and instituting the Aboriginals indigenous laws can resolve the issue of different systems running in the same country. Ideas of reconciliation in a common law system with Canada would be acting from top down (repealing the Indian Act) and bottom up (from Aboriginal communities instituting their Indigenous laws) building upon grass root initiatives, which will be discussed in the subsequent components. Building from the bottom up as Funk (2012) discussed can further establish and strengthen the process of implementing the two systems for building good governance. With the integration of international law to federal law to Aboriginal law, it speaks to the component of good governance. The Royal Proclamation will create an enabling environment where the UNDRIP and the TRC Calls to Action can thrive.

Transforming persons

With the New Proclamation in place and the Indian Act repealed, this can give room to foster transformation in people. Transformation can be seen through education to decolonize the non-Aboriginals and settlers, to become an ally and take action to join their cause, and lastly for the Aboriginals to heal from the past traumas. If campaigns “fail to produce loyalty shifts within security or civilian bureaucracy are unlikely to achieve success” (Chenoweth and Stephan, 40). Transformation is imperative for a movement to succeed.

TRC creates fundamental changes to give capacity for the Aboriginals to govern themselves, not through the Indian Act. The transformation required are the mindset of the both Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals and of all, Canada. Education is crucial factor for mindset change. Martin, Renee, Monica, and Jean have discussed the use of education to decolonize settlers way of thinking, requires Indigenous leadership, and have control over own education on top of policy and legislation changes[24]. They believe universities are at the root of continuing the colonization process, whereby changing and decolonizing the faculty will reform the education and knowledge of Aboriginal people. Through rediscovery of identity will provide empowerment of Aboriginal people and this can be achieved through education[25]. “The new native leaders, often graduates of the residential schools and frequently university educated, debated effectively on the southern terms, but did so with the special conviction of a threatened people” (Coates, 223). The educated Aboriginal leaders help protect their rights and further push for reform and legislation restructuring. Bob Rae has seen lots of communities beginning to rejuvenate their own laws[26] through education and re-identification of who they are.

The transformation that is required is the understanding from Canada to acknowledge that they are on Aboriginal grounds and not the other way around and education will be the driving force of this transformation. Institutional changes need to come from the provinces and operationalizing the Calls to Action can be the changes.

Working in coalitions

Kantowitz and Riak describes this as “strengthen[ing] formal and informal coalitions and alliances that intentionally impact across boundaries and differences” (Kantowitz and Riak, 15). Cooperation can be between “opposition politicians, workers, students, businesspeople, Catholic Church leaders, and others” (Chenoweth and Stephan, 32) to come together to confront the adversary. As discussed before, for the first few hundred years, the Aboriginals and the European settlers have been working in coalitions before the migration of more Europeans which create the power shift. This coalition can once more be achieved.

Already the United Church of Canada has begun the process of reconciliation as they were at the front lines of the assimilation process. The church has acknowledged the past by changing the crest to include indigenous culture. The church has further acknowledged and acted upon the relevant Calls to Action (United Church, 2015). Not only was this transformative and reconciliatory, but it is working in coalition with the Aboriginals who have taken their apology and consecrated it with ceremony (TRC, 2015).

Working together with Canada, being the adversary, has been a challenge. Some scholars view the relationship working together under the common law, which can also fall under creating a culture of good governance, includes co-management of land. Co-management means coming to a consensus together. Currently the Ministers can veto any decision showing the crown still has control and not the Aboriginals[27]. This will also mean that planning will be set by Aboriginals and not treated as beneficiaries[28].

Coalitions are not limited to Canada, Universities and the Church. There are a series of networks which the Aboriginals have built upon, including the international community of UNDRIP, UNCESCR, and UN Human Rights Committee[29]. However further coalitions can be built, as Aboriginal issues are still not prevalent enough through daily Canadian life and new settlers to Canada

Enhancing communities to generate hope

Kantowitz and Riak describes this as “strengthening both traditional and emerging mechanisms, values, wisdom and resources that enhance people and systems” (Kantowitz and Riak, 15). As Cat Criger and Jacqui Lavalley has stated, through the re-discovery of self, it engages and empowers the communities to be proud to be Aboriginals once again. Re-identification and re-discovery of ethnic heritage will be the crucial part of this component. This ties in with the earlier discussion of education and transforming of persons through education. To expand further, Renee McGurry[30] presented and explored a matrix (Figure 1) where instituting education can enhance culture, identity, and hope. Beginning with Curriculum, she believes there needs to be hands on learning and the Aboriginal teachers can empower others to embark on the journey of healing and hope. Through this, the rediscovery of Culture needs to be taught for further empowerment, unity, and mobilization of the community. This affirmation of culture Connects them to who they are, to family, and to community. This encompasses the last quadrant of the matrix for Community. These kind of actions foster grassroots movements like Idle no More (INMM, 2016).

Further connection to concepts include Funk’s discussion of building on what’s already there. He states that “to meet the peacebuilding needs of the 21st century and create a more sound and equitable basis for engaging global governance challenges, more genuinely empowering forms of grassroots mobilization and local-international partnership are needed” (Funk, 396). These are not 21^st century approaches. These have been the Aboriginal traditional practices of relationship building. This includes what we would now call “international” partnership as discussed earlier that “relationships with people from other nations were formalized by defining a place for them in each nation’s family” (Mann, 331). This type of grassroots mobilization can be further enhanced upon the removal of the Indian Act and implementing the Royal Proclamation.

Developing sustainable livelihoods with just distribution of resources

As discussed earlier, the Aboriginals have a spiritual connection to the land. They believed themselves to be stewards of the land to give to their grandchildren and that they do not own it[31]. Land planning becomes an important issue and has been the most visible conflict for attention of media. All the Acts created to control the natural resources under the crown and away from the Aboriginals show an imbalance of distribution. Even though there are jurisdictional control on the reserves, the pollution that enter the reserves from oil fields or other sources do not observe these jurisdictional boundaries. Regional ecosystem services do not follow the artificially man made boundaries. Large fauna will migrate and rivers will run. The small allocated plots of lands designated for the reserves are under the scrutiny of the larger surrounding ecosystems. If that surrounding land loses ecosystem capacity, it would adversely affect the reserves. Even with the “duty to consult” Aboriginal groups[32], the Canadian Ministers can veto any land development claims and boundaries.

The common goal that could be used to map environmental peacebuilding is the long term planning on how to allocate resources and land[33]. While the common discourse of protection of the environment is to adapt to the effects of climate change instead of addressing the underlying issues and practices that endanger it (Levy and Vaillancourt, 2011). There is a great potential here to address environmental concerns using a co-management approach, where it ties into working in coalitions. The fundamental behavioural change needs to see the “I can just take” point of view to be “stewards” of the land. Hayden stated that this needs to assimilate settlers to indigenous points of view and need to take on the larger discourse of capitalism, which expands this scope of this paper.

In Conca’s (2002) article, there are two ways environmental peacekeeping can occur. One, “transforming more immediate problems of mistrust, uncertainty, suspicion, divergent interest, and short time horizons that typically accompany conflictual situations.” And two, peace is viewed as a “shared collective identity within which violent conflict becomes inconceivable” (Conca, 10). The Walpole Island First Nation[34] is a successful example of co-management between the Aboriginals and Canada (Walpole First Island Nation, 2016). There would be less water and lands conflict pushed by the Idle No More Movement (INMM, 2016) as the characteristics of the first environmental peacekeeping outcome would be solved. Funk’s concept of building on what’s already there can play a large role as there is much Aboriginal knowledge to cultivate in this component.

Given the right environment to foster, there can be more examples of Walpole Island and less Idle No More Movement conflicts. The two results of environmental peacekeeping could be the result of co-management of the land between Canada and the Aboriginals. By allowing planning to be set by the Aboriginals, the Royal Proclamation would hopefully be the catalyst to enable the legislation to allow it.

Conclusion

This paper has explored some of the main developments of Aboriginal-settler relationship, but there are many more detailed issues that require further examination. The main overarching goal is for Canada to accept reconciliation on the Aboriginal terms. When this is achieved, then it would be possible to begin a renewed relationship with each other based upon Calls to Action 45, new Royal Proclamation.  The IPAD framework can be used to disseminate the conditions the new Royal Proclamation will enable.

Summarizing the five components:

• Creating a culture of good governance; focuses on implementing the Royal Proclamation upon which creates the necessary conditions for the remainder of the recommendations to foster
• Tranforming people, focuses on indigenous education, leadership for re-identification of ethnicity, and trauma healing
• Working in coalitions, focuses on working with Canada, univeresities and increasing Indigenous visibility
• Enhancing communites that generate hope; focuses on empowering the indigenous community through educational transformation
• Developing sustainable livelihoods with just distribution of resources; focuses on landy, treaty, distribution and natural resources and people as stewards of land and not consumers.

Each of these sections are tied into each other which support each other through the framework creating a holistic approach to building sustainable peace. “Renée Dupuis, chief commissioner of the Indian Claims Commission, argues that the “history of North America has not yet been written. It is still written in English from an Anglophone point of view… We are stuck on the colonizing roots” (Saul, 21). With the history of the Aboriginals slowly being revealed through the TRC, this is the crucial juncture as there is renewed ambition from Canada to better improve relationships, this can prove a new beginnings of everyone living on Aboriginal land.

Bibliography

Anderson M.B., Wallace, M., (2013) Opting Out of War: Strategies to Prevent Violent Conflict. Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc: Colorado

Barsalou, J., (2008) “Managing Memory: Looking to Transitional Justice to Address Trauma” in Peacebuilding in Traumatized Societies, ed. Barry Hart. Pp 27 – 47. Toronto: University Press of America

Boyce, R. (1994) People of Terra Nullius: betrayal and rebirth in Aboriginal Canada. Seattle: University of Washington

Byrne, S., and Nada, A., (2011) “The Social Cube Analytical Model and Protracted Ethnoterritorial Conflicts” in Critical Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies ed. Matyók, T., Byrne, S., Senehi, J., pp 61 – 80 UK: Lexington Books

Call to Action: Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) (2015) Canada’s Residential Schools: Reconciliation. Montreal and Kingston: University Press

Chenoweth, E., and Stephan, M., (2008) Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. International Security 33(1), 7-44.

Coates, K., (1985) Canada’s Colonies: A history of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. James Lorimer & Company: Toronto

Conca, K. (2002) “The Case for Environmental Peacemaking.” In Environmental Peacemaking, ed. 

Ken Conca and Geoffrey D. Dabelko, pp. 1-22. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Funk, N.C (2012) Building on What’s Already There: Valuing the Local in the International Peacebuilding. International Journal. Vol: 67 (2). 391 – 408

Hart, B., (2008) Peacebuilding in Traumatized Societies. Toronto: University Press of America

Idle No More Movement (INMM) (2016). Retrieved 31 March 2016, from http://www.idlenomore.ca/

Kane, L., (2015, October 1) Northern Gateway Pipeline may be the Difference for Future 

Government, Aboriginal relations. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/01/pipeline-battle-could-set-tone-for-future-government-aboriginal-relations_n_8227780.html

Kantowitz, R., and Riak, A., (2008) “Critical Links between Peacebuilding and Trauma Healing: A Holistic Framework for Fostering Community Development” ” in Peacebuilding in Traumatized Societies, ed. Barry Hart. Pp 3 – 26. Toronto: University Press of America

Levy, A., and Vaillancourt, J-G (2011) “War on Earth? Junctures Between Peace and the Environment” in Critical Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies ed. Matyók, T., Byrne, S., Senehi, J., pp 217 - 244 UK: Lexington Books

Mas, S., (2015, December 8) Trudeau lays out plan for new relationship with indigenous people. CBC News. Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-afn-indigenous-aboriginal-people-1.3354747

Matyók, T., Byrne, S., Senehi, J., (2011) Critical Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies. UK: Lexington Books

Saul, J.R (2008) A Fair Country. Toronto: Penguin

Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) (2015) Canada’s Residential Schools: Reconciliation. Montreal and Kingston: University Press

Truth and Reconciliation Commission (B) (TRC). What we have Learned: Principles of Truth and Reconciliation. Montreal and Kingston: University Press

United Church of Canada (2015). Truth and Reconciliation Commissions of Canada: United Church Backgrounder on the TRC Calls to Action

Walpole Island First Nation – Bkejwanong Territory. (2016). Walpoleislandfirstnation.ca. Retrieved 31 March 2016, from http://walpoleislandfirstnation.ca/

---

[1] Douglas stated this at this at the Nation to Nation panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto heled, March 23 to 24, 2016. Douglas Sanderson is a member of the Opaskwayak Cree Nation and an Associate Professor at the University Of Toronto Faculty Of Law and holds a LL.M from Columbia University.

[2] Statements from facilitators of the Reconciliation Blanket Exercise at University of Toronto, March 17^th, 2016

[3] Arther Manual stated this at 150 years of Colonization and Self Determination seminar on February 22^nd, 2016

[4] Statements from facilitators of the Reconciliation Blanket Exercise at University of Toronto, March 17^th, 2016

[5] Susan Neylan at the Churches and TRC panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto heled, March 23 to 24, 2016

[6] Statements from facilitators of the Reconciliation Blanket Exercise at University of Toronto, March 17^th, 2016

[7] Arther Manual stated this at 150 years of Colonization and Self Determination seminar on February 22^nd, 2016

[8] Statistics from Frank Lacobucci, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from 1991 to 2004 at the Churches and TRC Panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto heled, March 23 to 24

[9] Hayden King shared this story at the Land and Treaty panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto heled, March 23 to 24, 2016. He is the Director for the Centre of Indigenous Governance and an Assistant Professor of Politics at Ryerson University.

[10] Paul Williams stated this at the Nation to Nation panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016. He is a negotiator for the Indigenous nations for forty years. He writes on the Great Law of Peace of the Haudenosaunee while teaching at University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Mc Master University, and First Nations University.

[11] Douglas Sanderson stated this at the Nation to Nation panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016.

[12] Paul Williams stated this at the Nation to Nation panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016

[13] John Kim Bell stated this at the Key Note Speech at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016. He founded the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation

[14] Bob Rae stated this at the Key Note Panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto heled, March 23 to 24, 2016.

[15] Paul Williams stated this at the Nation to Nation panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016

[16] Bob Rae stated this at the Key Note Panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto heled, March 23 to 24, 2016. He is a former Premier of Ontario and is a senior partner at the Olthuis Kleer Townshend LLP, a law firm advising Indigenous people.

[17] Oral dialogue, February 22, 2016 at Indigenous Education Network (IEN) at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at University of Toronto

[18] Douglas Sanderson stated this at the Nation to Nation panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016

[19] Paul Williams stated this at the Nation to Nation panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016

[20] Heather Dorries stated this at the Land and Treaty panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016. She is an assistant professor at Carleton University where she teachers Indigenous Policy and Administration Program.

[21] Deborah McGregor stated this at the Nation to Nation panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016

[22] John Kim Bell stated this at the Key Note Speech at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016. He founded the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation.

[23] Machiej Bartkowski presented at the ICNC Academic Seminar. Civil Resistance; Scholarship and Practice held at University of Toronto on Feb 27-28 2016.

[24] The speakers for the panel Educational Institutions Respond to the TRC’s Report? at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016

[25] Cat Criger and Jackqui Lavalley oral dialogue, February 22, 2016 at Indigenous Education Network (IEN) at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at University of Toronto

[26] Bob Rae stated this at the Key Note Panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto heled, March 23 to 24, 2016.

[27] Hayden King stated this at the Land and Treaty panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016.

[28] Heather Dorries stated this at the Land and Treaty panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016.

[29] Arther Manual stated this at 150 years of Colonization and Self Determination seminar on February 22^nd, 2016

[30] Renee McGurry stated this at the Education Institution Response to TRC panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016

[31] John Kim Bell stated this at the Key Note Speech at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016.

[32] Dean Jacobs stated this at the Land and Treaty Relationship Panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016. He is the Consultation Manager for Walpole Island First Nation.

[33] Hayden King stated this at the Land and Treaty panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016

[34] Hayden King stated this at the Land and Treaty panel at Restoring Respectful Relationships: Designing a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation Walter Gordon Symposium at University of Toronto held, March 23 to 24, 2016