Recontextualizing Reconciliation: A Genealogy of Constitutional Discourses in Canada, 1980-2006

The term “reconciliation” has become ubiquitous in Canada, underpinning divergent commitments as much as leading to wide-ranging critiques. It has been used frequently in constitutional politics, in relation to both Canada’s relationship with Québec and Canada’s relationships with Indigenous peoples. Reconciliation’s discursive prevalence in Canada presents an intriguing phenomenon given that it means many different things, has varying uses outside of politics, and is widely contested when applied to political relations. To explore the ways these characteristics have shaped uses of reconciliation and the paths by which the term attained its contemporary omnipresence, this dissertation investigates when, how, and with what effects discourses of reconciliation emerged and developed in Canadian constitutional politics. The dissertation uses a genealogical approach to study the conceptual and contextual features of reconciliation discourses and the interplay between them, enabling assessment of different uses and of their operation in relation to each other and to the broad constellation of constitutional power dynamics in Canada. It draws on the insights of genealogical theorists, particularly William Connolly, Michel Foucault, Dalie Giroux, Quentin Skinner, and James Tully, to develop an approach that attends to the role of both actors and events as it explores the intersections of time, space, and power that shape the emergence and development of reconciliation discourses. Informed by Adrian Little’s work on contextualizing concepts and Norman Fairclough and Isabela Fairclough’s work on discourse analysis, the dissertation employs a series of distinctions put forward by Mark Walters, Bert van Roermund, Catherine Lu, and Sara Ahmed and Anna Carastathis to conceptualize different types of reconciliation and analyze a wide-ranging array of uses of the term covering three decades of constitutional politics, concluding with the House of Commons’s recognition of Québec as a nation and the provision to create the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2006. The analysis explores a mix of government documents, commission reports, court decisions, hearing transcripts, interviews, (auto)biographical accounts, news media, parliamentary debates, press releases, and other records to identify the points of emergence of different discourses and examine their development over time and across contexts as reconciliation came to be adopted in jurisprudence, government policy, and the creation of institutions. The dissertation advances a three-part set of propositions regarding the emergence and development of reconciliation discourses. When: Though there were occasional earlier uses, the term began to emerge in earnest in Canadian constitutional politics in the 1980s and early 1990s. Discourses of reconciliation relating to Québec largely faded after the late 1990s, though they have made periodic reappearances around key events such as the 2006 House of Commons motion, while those regarding relations with Indigenous peoples have continued to proliferate. How: Reconciliation discourses have been used, to differing degrees, in relations between Canada and Québec and between Canada and Indigenous peoples. Their emergence in both contexts was significantly, though not exclusively, shaped by the patriation of the constitution. In the period studied, the term was used both to promote state policy and existing constitutional structures and to challenge them or express doubt about their capacity to achieve reconciliation. Occasionally, the appropriateness of using the term in these constitutional contexts was called into question. Multiple meanings and types of application to politics, a lack of clarity and specificity, and the influence of power relations have marked the use of reconciliation discourses from the outset. These trends are visible in both cases. However, there is also variation between the cases, and uses of the term in relation to Québec did not become institutionalized as those pertaining to Canada and Indigenous peoples did. With what effects: All of these varying uses of reconciliation have the cumulative effect of risking conveying a misleading impression that parties using the term share a common commitment to an agreed-upon undertaking. Such an impression obscures how power relations shape the implications of differing discourses and the interactions between parties in which they are used. The genealogy presented in the dissertation counters this impression by taking stock of what kinds of political work is done by reconciliation discourses. Highlighting how they are marked by conceptual complexities and intertwined with relations of power, it reveals the tensions at the core of contemporary conversations about reconciliation in Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.