On October 27, 2022, the Canadian House of Commons unanimously adopted a motion proposed by NDP MP, Leah Gazan to recognize the Indian Residential School system as an act of genocide. It has now been three months since this motion passed and there seems to have been relatively sparse coverage regarding such a momentous occasion. One of the major questions many are wondering is what comes next?

Leah Gazan, member of the Wood Mountain Lakota First Nation and MP for Winnipeg Centre, proposed a motion to recognize the Indian Residential School system as a genocide. In its entirety, the motion reads: “That, in the opinion of the House that the government must recognize what happened in Canada's Indian residential schools as genocide, as acknowledged by Pope Francis and in accordance with article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”

In the House when a motion passes ‘unanimously’ this simply means no MPs voice opposition. As a result, this motion may not reflect government policies or actions. This is not Gazan’s first attempt to get the house of commons to recognize genocide. She proposed the motion twice before, once in 2021, and again in the summer of 2022.

To better understand the impacts of this motion, I spoke with leading Indigenous scholar and Trent Professor, David Newhouse about what this approved motion means for decolonization and reconciliation in Canada. In our conversation, Newhouse pointed out that this motion could not have even been proposed five years ago. Considering that it took three attempts over the past two years to pass the motion, his claim holds significant weight.

Although the conversation regarding genocide in Canada is extremely new in public discourse, it is not new among Indigenous communities. In 2015 then Chief Justice of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, and Chair of the National Truth and Reconciliation Committee (TRC), Murray Sinclair, both stated that Canada’s policies to remove children from their families constituted cultural genocide against Indigenous peoples. Sinclair later elaborated that the term “cultural” was only added for legal reasons, but maintained that a cultural genocide is still a genocide. The fact that now, eight years later, the House of Commons is referring to the treatment of Indigenous peoples as just genocide demonstrates an increased willingness by members of parliament to accept responsibility. In 2019 when the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls was published, it concluded that Canada has been actively committing genocide. Another significant moment regarding public discussions about genocide in Canada was when Pope Francis admitted that the Indian Residential Schools and forced assimilation of Indigenous children constitute as genocide.

One of the main points that Newhouse made during our conversation was that the conversation about genocide in Canada is hard to ignore, but somehow, we seem to be ignoring it. Since the House of Commons motion, there has been little public discussion and few news outlets providing coverage. Why is it that Canadians find it so easy to ignore the topic of genocide when unmarked burial sites filled with the remains of children are being uncovered all over the country? One of the reasons Newhouse suggests is the element of reconciliation fatigue. Canadians have been hearing about reconciliation for many years with major media attention focusing on it starting in 2015 when the TRC concluded their mandate. Since this surge in media coverage, discussions of reconciliation have been dominant, but many Canadians do not know what reconciliation looks like. As a result, people begin to lose interest in pushing for reconciliation, or begin to feel as though there is nothing they can do to achieve reconciliation. 

One of the reasons for white settlers not understanding what reconciliation looks like is because of caucacity; the audacity of white people to act in an entitled way, often stemming from ingrained ideals of white privilege. In their mind, to do something would mean to give up their way of life. Many white people, especially those of Western European descent believe that by reconciling with Indigenous peoples they will have to give up their rights and freedoms. An example is the grave misunderstanding of what “land back” represents. Many white folks take this statement literally. They think that Indigenous peoples want to remove white people from the land, tear down the buildings, and return to their ancestral way of life. When Indigenous claims for land often surround sharing the land equitably and protecting their traditional land practices. Through caucacity there is also a sense that white people worked hard for their position and think that the other races are lazy and want handouts. If you take a step back and think about how Western Europeans came to dominate so much of the world, it is clear to see that it came through violence, deception, displacement, destruction, and setting up systems to ensure that non-whites would remain beneath them. 

Another reason why discussions about genocide are often ignored is because they are difficult to have. It is scary and uncomfortable to talk about genocide happening in the place one lives, and it becomes even more so when one’s ancestors potentially perpetrated such horrific acts. However, having these difficult conversations is a crucial step towards achieving reconciliation. In fact, Newhouse suggests it may be one of the first steps to achieving meaningful reconciliation. Another reason having these difficult conversations is so important is because anyone can have them. Further, with more citizens talking about these horrific truths, there is more incentive for the government to act.