Reconciling Reconciliation: Differing Conceptions of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Abstract

Cet article traite du concept de << rconciliation >> tel qu'utilise dans deux forums : la Cour supreme du Canada (la Cour) et la Commission de v6rit6 et de r6conciliation sur les r6percussions des << pensionnats indiens >> (CVR). Le d6veloppement du concept dans la jurisprudence de la Cour, compar6 d la litt6rature universitaire sur la justice transitoire, m6rite un examen soign6. La Cour a utilis6 ce terme dans ses d6cisions visant d contrebalancer les d6clarations de souverainet6 autochtone dans le contexte du colonialisme canadien. Ce concept de r6conciliation est par ailleurs bien different de celui qui s'est developpe dans le discours canadien, grdce a la CVR. L'auteur suggere que la vision de la reconciliation de la CVR, c'est-h-dire comme processus mutuel dans lequel les peuples autochtones et non-autochtones doivent s'engager, est un concept plus juste a adopter. This paper considers the concept of "reconciliation" as it is utilized in two fora: the Supreme Court of Canada (the Court) and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the legacy of the "Indian residential schools" (TRC). The concept's development in the Court's jurisprudence, as compared to the scholarly literature of transitional justice, warrants careful consideration. The Court has used the term in decisions seeking to balance assertions of Indigenous sovereignty in the context of Canadian colonialism. However, this concept of reconciliation is quite different from that which has entered Canadian discourse from the TRC. The author suggests that the vision of reconciliation enunciated by the TRC as a mutual process to be engaged in by Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples alike would be a more just conception to adopt.