Over time, the Canadian state has used a variety of mechanisms to address its troubled relationship with its indigenous population, the most prominent of which so far was the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP). RCAP was mandated to develop both a constitutional framework and a comprehensive social-welfare policy. Staffed predominantly with constitutional lawyers, it articulated a sophisticated constitutional theory, which was not implemented, and did little to ameliorate the living conditions of Aboriginal people. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Indian Residential Schools (TRC), while arising from the settlement of a national class action, can be seen as a successor commission to RCAP. It follows in the procedural footprints of RCAP in a number of ways, including in the profile of its key appointments. This article argues that looking back at the successes and failures of RCAP can be instructive for the TRC as it carries out its mandate, allowing us to predict some areas that will be particularly challenging. In these areas, the TRC will require a departure from the RCAP blueprint if it is to achieve the ambitious goals of a TRC in a non-transitional-justice context.

When we talk about truth and reconciliation commissions, we are accustomed to speaking of “transitional justice” mechanisms used in emerging democracies addressing histories of grave injustices. Public inquiries are usually the state response to past injustice in the Canadian context. The Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is the result of a legal settlement agreement involving the government, representatives of indigenous peoples who attended residential schools for a period lasting more than a century, and the churches that operated those schools. Residential schools have been addressed in a series of public inquiries in Canada, culminating in the TRC. I argue that some of Canada's previous public inquiries, particularly with respect to indigenous issues, have strongly resembled truth commissions, yet this is the first time that an established democracy has called a body investigating past human-rights violations a “truth commission.” This article considers some of the reasons for seeking a truth commission in an established democracy and looks to a previous public inquiry led by Thomas Berger, the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, for some useful strategies for the TRC as it pursues its mandate. In particular, I suggest that a commission can perform a social function by using its process to educate the broader public about the issue before it.

Building on a cultural studies framework, this article addresses the implementation of the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement by cataloguing specific reconciliatory events, public forums, and media coverage that occurred in 2010. Revealing the contradictory nature of Canada's reconciliation project, the author situates the IRSSA within a larger infrastructure of policies and procedures that have limited Indigenous nationhood and autonomy in the Canadian settler society. Specifically, this article identifies a need to trouble categories of trauma and victimhood that may engender outcomes of cure, which ultimately constitute a foreclosure on the past in Canada's reconciliation process. While therapeutic language is less apparent in the IRSSA, the author suggests, it is still deployed under the guise of closure and “settlement.”