On June 11, 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper rose in Canada’s House of Commons to give an official apology for residential schooling. He called the treatment of Indigenous children in the schools “a sad chapter in our history,” for which “the Government of Canada sincerely apologizes.”^[1] Mr. Harper and the other party leaders expressed palpable remorse for the past injustices of Canadian policy, and leaders representing First Nations, Métis, Inuit peoples, women, and urban Indigenous people gravely responded to the apology from the floor of the House.

For many Canadians, this promised to be a turning point in our relations with Indigenous peoples. Until the 1990s when stories of abuse in the schools hit the media and the courts, most Canadians had never heard of the schools. Now the Prime Minister of Canada was admitting that a government policy had been wrong and that the attitudes that inspired the policy have “no place in Canada.” More importantly, he promised a new relationship between Indigenous peoples and Canadians, one of shared history, renewed understanding, and new respect for all cultures, traditions, and communities.^[2] Two processes were meant to bring this new relationship about. First there was compensation for those who attended the residential schools. Second, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was tasked with documenting the full history of the schools. Restorative justice scholars gave the Harper apology high marks.^[3]

However, the apology was not a turning point. Its major failing was that it situated all the wrongs of government policy in the past. It did not commit the Canadian Government in any concrete way to changing its actions towards First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples in the present. This was a significant mistake because a changed relationship with Canada was what Indigenous people wanted.^[4]

By 2008, Indigenous people in Canada had already begun to shift the conversation between themselves and Canadians in really fundamental ways. In the 20th century, Indigenous people demanded government recognition of their rights and title to the land. As a new generation of Indigenous leaders arose, they increasingly sought resurgence — of their own cultures and communities — rather than recognition. They wanted a new relationship with Canada, the kind of relationship of sharing and mutual respect that their ancestors had expected when they signed treaties.

The trouble was that Indigenous people have not shared equally in Canadian wealth. In some parts of Canada, Indigenous people have poverty rates that are three times those of other Canadians.^[5] Less money is spent on reserve schools and Indigenous children are ten times more likely to end up in foster care.^[6] So while Mr. Harper was apologizing for the damage done to Indigenous children and families by residential schools, the legacies of residential schooling continued unabated.^[7]

The Cree community of Attawapiskat has become emblematic of Canada’s dysfunctional relationship with Indigenous people. An isolated community on the shores of James Bay, Attawapiskat made the news repeatedly in the early 2000s. Its only school was condemned as a health hazard, and student Shannen Koostachin took her demands for a new school to Ottawa in 2007. Four years later, Chief Theresa Spence (b. 1963) declared a state of emergency over inadequate housing. What made the situation worse was that the multinational corporation DeBeers was just 80 km away making a steady profit mining diamonds from Cree lands. The agreement DeBeers signed with Attawapiskat to share the mine’s benefits did not include infrastructure, such as schools and houses, because that was, they argued, the responsibility of the Canadian government.^[8] On December 11, 2012, Spence announced that she would go on a hunger strike to protest unfulfilled treaties. ^[9]

When Spence announced her hunger strike, she joined an already growing wave of protest and resurgence among Indigenous people. The protest centred on government Bill C-45, a 457-page omnibus bill that loosened legal restrictions inhibiting investment in Canadian resources. The changes that C-45 introduced to the Indian Act, for example, made it easier to lease or surrender reserve land by removing the democratic requirement for a community-wide vote. First Nations were not consulted on any of these changes. Within a month of C-45’s first reading, on 10 November 2012, four Indigenous women in Saskatoon — Sylvia McAdam, Nina Wilson, Jessica Gordon, and Sheelah McLean — conducted a teach-in on the bill, which they publicized under the name Idle No More.^[10]

For the next six months, Idle No More exemplified Indigenous resurgence. Social media was a major force in Idle No More: by May 2013, there had been over 1.2 million Twitter mentions of the #Idlenomore hashtag. The social media profile of Idle No More underscores an important feature of the movement: it was diverse and dispersed in its power and its leadership — not linked to any mainstream Indigenous organization. Idle No More acknowledged the importance of women in Indigenous communities, and they often took the stage at events. To honour her leadership, the movement rallied behind Chief Spence in her hunger strike.

To emphasize the social media component is, however, to miss the incredible live experience of the movement. Hundreds attended teach-ins across the country to learn more about bill C-45, and how it violated treaty rights. Thousands marched on Parliament Hill on January 10, 2013 and participated in coordinated days of action across the country.

The Harper apology in 2008 and the subsequent findings of the TRC, released in 2015, have given Canadians ample reason to reflect on their failed relationship with Indigenous people. Yet Indigenous people ask not that Canadians focus on the past, but on the present and the future. TRC Chair, Chief Justice Murray Sinclair, has said that Canada will fail to uphold the spirit of the 2008 apology unless it commits to involving Indigenous people in decisions about their lands and resources.^[11] This too was Idle No More’s demand as the movement expressed renewed pride among Indigenous peoples for their grassroots leadership and traditional methods of peaceful social change.

Long Descriptions

Figure 11.20 long description: Protesters holding a banner that says “Idle no more! Unity, sovereignty, coast to coast. Nipissing First Nation. UOI-WBAFN-NFN.” On the banner is a fist clenching an eagle feather. The protesters are bundled in winter clothes. [Return to Figure 11.20]