Honouring Truth and Reconciliation Day: Truth, Treaty, and the Work Ahead
|
|
Time to read 3 min
|
|
Time to read 3 min
Each September 30, Canada is meant to pause, reflect, and confront the legacies of colonial violence, especially the residential school system—grieving those who did not return, honouring survivors, and acknowledging that the harms are not all past. For reconciliation to mean anything, it must engage with truth, including the ongoing injustices done to Indigenous peoples through laws, policies, and practices that deny voice, land, and sovereignty.
Below are some cases of recent legislation or policy where Indigenous peoples’ rights and input have been challenged. These are not the only ones, but they illustrate patterns we need to understand, call out, and oppose.
Recent Examples of Legislative Harm & Lack of Meaningful Indigenous Consultation
The Alberta government introduced a bill called the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act (often called the “Sovereignty Act”) that would give the province power to refuse to enforce or follow federal laws or policies it deems harmful to Alberta’s interests.
Indigenous treaty chiefs (Treaty 6, 7, 8, etc.) strongly oppose it, saying it was passed without proper consultation, that it threatens treaty rights, and that it gives provincial government power too broadly, without regard for constitutional obligations.
For example, Onion Lake Cree Nation has filed a legal claim arguing that the Sovereignty Act breaches treaty and constitutional rights because it was passed without their consultation.
2. Ontario’s Special Economic Zones Act (“Bill 5” / SEZA)
Ontario’s Bill 5, also known as the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025, is controversial because it allows the government to designate “special economic zones” (SEZs), “trusted proponents” or “designated projects,” and to exempt them from many laws, regulations, or approvals—including those that trigger consultation with Indigenous communities.
Critics argue the bill undermines environmental protections, heritage (including archaeological and culturally sacred sites), species‑at‑risk legislation, and regulatory oversight.
Many Indigenous leaders and First Nations feel the consultation process has been insufficient, or after decisions are largely made, or purely procedural rather than giving real power to object or shape outcomes.
3. Quebec’s Bill 96 (An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec) & Impacts on Indigenous People
Bill 96 strengthens Quebec’s French language laws, including by increasing French course requirements at English‑language CEGEPs and limiting availability of certain services in English.
Indigenous nations in Quebec have expressed concerns that Bill 96 was passed with inadequate consultation of Indigenous peoples. In particular, Mohawk Council of Kahnawake has said the consultation was “ingenuine” and that the bill could infringe on Indigenous self‑determination and rights to use Indigenous languages.
There are also real worries about how additional French requirements (courses, examinations) could disadvantage Indigenous students, many of whom are educated in English or Indigenous languages, or who already face systemic barriers in education.
The Broader Legal Context: Indian Act, UNDRIP, Treaty Rights & Constitutional Duty to Consult
While new laws are being introduced at the provincial and federal level, they exist in a longer architecture of colonial legal frameworks, many of them oppressive:
The Indian Act remains a federal law that grants (and restricts) power over many aspects of First Nations life: status, governance, land management, identity, etc. It has been amended many times but still underpins a lot of the legal relationship between First Nations and Canada.
Canada has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which includes rights like free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for decisions affecting land, resources, and cultural life. However, implementation has been uneven, and many actions by governments are criticized for falling short of what UNDRIP envisions.
The Constitution Act, 1982, especially Section 35, recognizes and affirms Indigenous and treaty rights. Courts have interpreted this as creating a legal duty for the Crown (i.e. federal or provincial governments) to consult with Indigenous peoples when legislation or decisions may adversely affect those rights. In many of the cases above, critics argue these duties are not being met—or are being diluted.
Sources
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/08/sovereignty-act-passed-alberta-canada?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Alberta ‘sovereignty act’ sets province on collision course with Justin Trudeau | Canada | The Guardian"
[2]: https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/sovereignty-act-legislation-condemned/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Chiefs in Alberta call Sovereignty Act ‘self-centred and short-sighted’"
[3]: https://globalnews.ca/news/9360474/treaty-6-nation-sues-alberta-treaty-breach-sovereignty-act/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Treaty 6 Nation sues Alberta government over sovereignty act | Globalnews.ca"
[4]: https://www.law360.ca/ca/realestate/articles/2351348/ontario-s-bill-5-undermining-indigenous-rights-species-at-risk-protections-in-name-of-growth?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Ontario’s Bill 5: Undermining Indigenous rights, species at risk protections in name of growth - Law360 Canada"
[5]: https://ero.ontario.ca/comment/145403?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Comments on Bill 5, Protect… | Environmental Registry of Ontario"
[6]: https://theconversation.com/bill-96-will-harm-indigenous-people-in-quebec-we-need-more-equitable-language-laws-182320?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Bill 96 will harm Indigenous people in Québec. We need more equitable language laws"
[7]: https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/kahnawake-unimpressed-with-consultations-on-quebec-indigenous-language-law-1.6415018?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Kahnawake unimpressed with consultations on Quebec Indigenous language law | CTV News"